-i&f^MM^f^".  >ll.\ 


-nl+ 


^k 


THE  LIMITATIONS 


OF    THE 


PREDICATIVE  POSITION  IN  GREEK 


A  DISSERTATION 

PRESENTED   TO   THE   BOARD   OF  UNIVERSITY  STUDIES   OF 

THE  JOHNS   HOPKINS   UNIVERSITY   FOR  THE 

DEGREE  OF  DOCTOR  OF  PHILOSOPHY 


BY 


ALFRJED  WILLIAM  MILDEN 

SOMETIME  FELLOW  OF  THE  JOHNS  HOPKINS  UNIVERSITY 


BALTI MORE 

JOHN    MURPHY    COMPANY 
I  900 


THE  LIMITATIONS 


OF   THE 


PREDICATIVE  POSITION  IN  GREEK 


A  DISSERTATION 

PRESENTED  TO  THE  BOARD   OF  UNIVERSITY  STUDIES  OF 

THE  JOHNS   HOPKINS  UNIVERSITY   FOR  THE 

DEGREE  OF  DOCTOR  OF  PHILOSOPHY 


BY 


ALFEED  WILLIAM  MILDEN 

SOMETIME   FELLOW   OF  THE   JOHNS  HOPKINS  UNIVERSITY 


B ALTI MORE 

JOHN    MURPHY   COMPANY 
I  900 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


Pagk. 
The  Greek  Article, 7 

Oblique  Predication, 10 

The  Predicative  Participle  as  the  Equivalent  op  an  Abstract 
Noun, 15 

The  Origin  op  the  Adverbial-Dative  Type  op  Predication,       -        18 

The  Adverbial-Dative  Type  op  Predication  in  (a)  Classical  Greek,    22 

The  Adverbial-Dative  Type  op  Predication  in  (6)  Post-Classical 
Greek,     '_ 26 

The  Prepositional  Type  op  Predication  in  (a)  Classical  Greek,    -    29 

The  Prepositional  Type  op  Predication  in  (b)  Post-Classical  Greek,    39 

Conclusion, -43 


254829 


BIBLIOGRAPHY. 


Bernhardt,  G. 
Blass,  F. 
Classen,  J. 

Donaldson,  J.  W. 
Jebb,  R.  C. 

Kruger,  K.  W. 

Kruger-Pokel. 

Kuhner-Gerth. 

Madvig,  J.  N. 
Middleton,  T.  F. 
mommsen,  t. 

Monro,  D.  B. 
Paul,  H. 

SCHMID,  W. 

schoemann,  g.  f. 
Steinthal,  H. 

VOGRINZ,   G. 


GENERAL   WORKS. 

Wissenschaftliche  Syntax.  Berlin,  1829. 

Die  attische  Beredsamkeit.  Leipzig,  1887. 

Beobachtungen  iiber  den  horn.  Sprg. 

Frankfurt  A.  M.,  1867. 
New  Cratylus.  London,  1850. 

The  Attic  Orators  from  Antiphon  to  Isaeus. 

London,  1876. 
Historisch-philologische  Studien,  Vol.  II.  Berlin,  1851. 
Griechische  Sprachlehre.  Leipzig,  1891. 

Ausfiihrliehe  Grammatik  der  griechischen  Sprache,  Part 
II.  (Satzlehre).  Leipzig,  1898. 

Syntax  of  the  Greek  Language.  London,  1873. 

The  Doctrine  of  the  Greek  Article,  etc.     London,  1841. 
Beitrage  zu   der   Lehre  von  den  griechischen   Prapo- 

Berlin,  1895. 
Oxford,  1891. 


sitionen. 
Homeric  Grammar. 


Principles  of  the  History  of  Ljlnguage.     New  York,  1889. 
Der  Atticismus,  Vol.  III.  Stuttgart,  1893. 

Die  Lehre  von  den  Redetheilen.  Berlin,  1862. 

Geschichte  der   Sprachwissenschaft  bei  den  Griechen 
und  Romern.  Berlin,  1863. 

Grammatik  des  homerischen  Dialektes. 

Paderborn,  1889. 


SPECIAL   WORKS. 


CcrcUEL,  Ch.  Essai  sur  la  langue  et  le  style  de  I'orateur  Antiphon. 

Berlin,  1882. 
Dornseiffen,  I.  De  articulo  apud  Graecos  eiusque  usu  in  praedicato. 

Amsterdam,  1856. 

Egger,  E.  Apollonius  Dyscole,   essai    sur   I'histoire  des    theories 

grammaticales  dans  1' antiquity.  Paris,  1854. 

EiCHHORST,  0.  Die  Lehre  des  Apollonius  Dyscolus  vom  Artikel.    Phi- 

lol.  38,  pp.  399-422. 
Elias,  S.  Quaestiones  Lycurgeae.  Halis  Saxonum,  1870. 

Fuller,  A.  L.  De  articuli  in  antiquis  Graecis  comoediis  usu. 

Leipzig,  1888. 

5 


6  /-v:^'</;-'.^    ■ 

GiLDERSLEEVE,  B.  L. 
GUTTENTAG,  I. 

Helbing,  R. 
holzweissig,  f. 
Kallenberg,  H. 
Mayer,  H. 
Procksch,  a. 
Spieker,  E.  H. 
Stolz,  Fr. 


r ,  r ,   ^  Bibliography, 

Amer.  Journ.  of  Philol.  2,  83  ff.,  8,  218  ff.,  9,  137  ff.,  17, 

319. 
De  Bubdito  qui  inter  Lucianeos  legi  solet  dialogo  Tox- 

aride.  Berlin,  1860. 

Ueber  den  Gebrauch  des  echten  und  sociativen  Dativs 

bei  Herodot.  Karlsruhe,  1898. 

Ueber  den  sociativ-instrumentalen  Gebrauch  des  griech. 

Dativ  bei  Homer.  Burg,  1885. 

Commentatio  critica  in  Herodotum.  Berlin,  1884. 

Jahresber.  des  philol.  Vereins  zu  Berlin,  1897. 
Observationes  in  Lycurgi  oratoris  usum  dicendi. 

Freiburg,  1889. 
Ueber  den  Gebrauch  des  Artikels,  insbesondere  beim 

Pradicat,  Philol.  40,  pp.  1-47. 
Genitive  Absolute  in  the  Attic  Orators,  Amer.  Journ.  of 

Philol.  6,310  ff. 
Der  attributive  Gebrauch  von  avr6s  beim  sociativen 

Dativ,  Wiener  Studien,  vol.  20,  p.  244  ff. 


THE  LIMITATIONS  OF  THE  PREDICATIVE 
POSITION  IN  GREEK. 


A  study  of  the  limitations  of  the  predicative  position  in  Greek 
calls  for  a  brief  treatment  of  the  origin  and  historical  development 
of  the  Greek  article. 

Aristotle  (Poetics,  c.  21)  is  the  first  writer  by  whom  the  pro- 
noun is  referred  to  as  a  separate  part  of  speech.  He  expressly 
makes  mention  of  the  ovoaa,  the  prjaa, 
the  avvBea/jLOi;,  and  the  apOpov,  though 
elsewhere  he  includes  the  last  two  under 
o-vvSecr/jLO^.  We  do  not  know  when  the  name  avrwvvfjLia  was 
introduced.  Schoemann's  assumption,  Die  Lehre  von  den  Rede- 
theilen,  p.  117,  that  it  originated  with  the  Alexandrian  gram- 
marians is  not  improbable.  He  is  probably  right,  too,  in  assuming 
that  the  separation  of  the  pronoun  from  the  article  did  not  take 
place  later  than  the  time  of  Aristarchus,  the  grammarian.  It  is 
important  to  remember,  however,  that  this  separation  was  not 
countenanced  by  the  Stoics,  who  did  not  fail  to  perceive  that  the 
article  was  in  reality  a  degraded  pronoun.  Under  the  general 
name  of  pronoun,  they  comprehended  both  pronoun  and  article. 
The  Stoic  view  of  the  nature  of  the  article — that  it  is  a  degraded 
pronoun — has  won  general  acceptation. 

In  Homer  6  rj  to  is  the  commonest  of  the  demonstrative  pro- 
nouns. It  is  a  matter  of  great  interest  to  the  student  of  language 
to  observe  the  traces  of  the  gradual  weakening  of  the  pronominal 
force  of  0  77  TO.  Accompanying  this  loss  is  the  growing  use  of 
0VT09,  oBe,  and  €Kelvo<^.  The  gradual  weakening  of  the  pronomi- 
nal 6  7)  TO  is,  however,  only  another  way  of  characterising  the 
transition  from  pronoun  to  article.  Vogrinz,  Grammatik  des 
homerischen  Dialektes,  p.  197,  points  out  one  step  in  the  devel- 
opment of  the  article  where  the  pronominal  form  and  the  noun  to 

7 


8  The  Limitations  of  the  Predicative  Position  in  Greek. 

which  it  relates  are  separated  merely  by  light  particles.  Cf.,  e.  g., 
7]  8e  vv  fi'qrrjp  (X  405),  ol  Si  vv  \aoi  (A  382j,  to,  S^  .  .  .  KrjXa 
(A  383),  ol  Bk  deoi  (A  1),  o  7  ^p«9  (E  308),  rob  U  ol  Saae,  r^ 
Be  ol  oofjLot)  (saepe).  The  following  statistics  for  the  pronominal  and 
articular  use  of  0,  rj,  to  are  quoted  by  Vogrinz  (1.  c.)  from  Stum- 
mer  (Ueber  den  Artikel  bei  Homer,  Progr.,  Miinnerstadt,  1886, 
p.  56).  In  the  Iliad  0,  77,  to  is  used  as  a  pronoun  3,000  times,  as 
an  article  218  times,  i.  e.,  in  the  ratio  of  14:1;  in  the  Odyssey  it 
is  found  as  a  pronoun  2,178  times,  as  an  article  171  times,  i.  e.,  in 
the  ratio  of  13:1.  These  statistics,  as  Vogrinz  observes,  hardly 
justify  us  in  claiming  an  advance  in  the  use  of  the  article.  That 
it  began  to  be  used  with  a  greater  degree  of  frequency  in  Homer 
can  be  seen  by  an  examination  of  the  later  portions  of  the  Odyssey, 
and  in  parts  of  other  books.  Vogrinz,  p.  198,  on  the  basis  of 
Stummer's  investigation,  illustrates  freely  the  Homeric  uses  of  the 
article.  Some  of  these  may  fitly  be  noted  here.  (1)  With  particu- 
lar words :  tolo  uvukto^  (A  322,  7  388,  cf)  62),  rj  ttXtjOv^  (B  278, 

0  305),  Tov  'r]VLO')(pv  (^  465),  tov  oXtjttjv  {a-  333),  tov  /jlvOov  (B  16, 

1  55,  309,  T  185),  t^v  yaaTepa  {o-  380),  ra  Bcopa  {X  339);  (2)  with 
particular  classes  of  words,  as  (a)  cardinal  numbers  :  t»}9  fjL€v  Itj^ 
(TTixo'^  (n  173),  Tr)v  jjuev  lav  (f  435),  ol  Tpel^  (f  26),  ol  Be  Bvco  ctko- 
TreXot  (fi  73),  rot?  TrevTe  vea<;  (7  299) ;  substantivised  participles  : 
TOV  ayovTa  (^  262),  rw  irpoij^ovTa  ("^  325);  substantivised  adjec- 
tives :  TO  Kprj<yvov  (A  106),  tov  Bvo-ttjvov  {v  224),  tov  apiaTOv 
(f  19),  TO  fiekav  Bpv6<;  (^  12);  ordinals:  to  TrpcjTov,  to  BevTepov, 
etc.     Cf.  also  to  irdpo<^,  to  irpiv,  to  irpoaOev,  to  irdpoiOev. 

Quintilian  (Inst.  Or.  1,  4, 19)  says  of  the  Latin  language  :  Noster 
sermo  articulos  non  desiderat.  With  this  stage  corresponds,  in  the 
main.  Epic  Greek  which,  as  a  rule,  dispenses  with  the  use  of  the 
article.  Epic  use  diverges  from  Attic  at  several  points.  We  are 
familiar  with  the  classification  of  the  article  in  Attic  Greek  as 
particular  and  generic.  Homeric  usage  is  almost  wholly  confined 
to  the  former.  Vogrinz  (p.  198)  gives  but  two  indisputable  cases 
of  the  latter,  viz.,  tov  ojulolov  (H  53,  p  218).  Kriiger,  Dial.  50,  4, 
1  and  2,  gives  other  cases  which  may  be  considered  generic.  The 
use  of  the  article  with  possessive  significance — a  not  uncommon 
phenomenon  in  Attic — is  rarely,  if  at  all,  found.  The  substantive 
generally  suffices ;  occasionally  it  is  strengthened  by  the  possessive 


The  Limitations  of  the  Predicative  Position  in  Greek.  9 

pronoun.  The  three  or  four  cases  that  may  be  cited  are  incon- 
clusive. Cf.  Kriiger,  Dial.  50,  3,  6.  There  are  a  few  examples 
of  the  adjective  in  the  predicative  position  relatively  to  the  article. 
The  cases  employed  are  the  nominative  and  the  accusative.  The 
commonest  expression  of  this  class  is  irolov  rbv  fjuvdov  which  occurs 
seven  times,  all  in  the  Iliad.     Cf.,  further,  Kriiger  Dial.  50, 10, 1. 

In  passing  to  the  function  of  the  article  in  Attic  Greek,  the 
writer  would  acknowledge  his  especial  obligations  to  Kriiger  among 
the  grammarians  who  have  treated  of  this  subject.  In  this  depart- 
ment of  his  work,  Kiihner  was  in  no  small  measure  dependent  on 
Kriiger.  Worthy  of  mention,  too,  is  the  excellent  treatise  of  Dorn- 
seiifen,  De  Articulo,  etc.,  to  which  Kriiger  was  indebted  for  some 
of  his  remarks  on  this  subject.  Viewed  logically,  the  function  of 
the  Attic  article  is  to  mark  the  object  with  which  it  is  used  as 
definite  and  well-known.  The  cases,  not  a  few,  where  no  article 
is  used,  are  best  explained  as  survivals  of  that  earlier  stage  of  the 
language  when  the  article  had  not  yet  come  to  maturity.  Such  are 
€t?  d(TTv,  and  the  like.  By  reason  of  this  definiteness  of  import, 
it  is  naturally  used  with  the  subject,  but  omitted  with  the  predicate. 
It  is  found,  however,  in  the  predicate  (1)  in  the  case  of  certain 
words  with  which  the  article  fuses,  e.  g.,  Plato,  Apol.  40  c:  hvolv 
'yap  Odrepov  ecrriv  to  reOvdvai  and  (2)  where  the  two  parts  of  the 
sentence  are  logically  convertible,  e.  g.,  Plato,  Theaet.  145  D  \  apov 
TO  fiavOdveiv  iarlv  to  crocfxoTepov  ry[yv6(r6ac  irepl  o  fjuavOdvei  Tt<; ; 
(cf.  Otto  Eichhorst,  Die  Lehre  des  Apollonius  Dysoolus  vom  Arti- 
kel,  Philol.,  vol.  38,  p.  399  ff.).  The  salient  uses  of  the  article  were 
clearly  understood  by  Apollonius  Dyscolus.  His  classification  was  as 
follows : — (1)  KaT  €^o)(^r]v, par  excellence,  e.  g.,  o  7rot7]Trj<;  =  Homer; 
(2)  Kara  fjuovaBiKrjv  ktyjctlv,  e.  g.,  o  ffaa-iX€v<^  crvv  to5  crTpaTevfiaTL 
— our  possessive  use ;  (3)  KaT  avTo  fiovov  aTrXrjv  dva(l>opdv.  The 
last  is  the  commonest  of  all,  and  in  it,  as  Apollonius  saw,  is  to  be  found 
the  essential  characteristic  of  the  Greek  article,  viz.,  dva(l>opd.  The 
generic  article  was  characterised  by  him  by  the  word  dopi(rTcoSco<i, 
inasmuch  as  it  was  not  limited,  or  defined,  like  the  others. 

Viewed  rhetorically,  the  article  distinguishes,  the  subject  from 
the  predicate  in  accordance  with  the  principle  which  has  been 
stated.  While  it  may  be  true  that  it  is  not  indispensable  to  a 
language,  as,  e.  g.,  Latin,  it  is  invaluable  as  a  means  of  gaining 


10         The  Limitations  of  the  Predicative  Position  in  Greek. 

precision,  e.  g.,  ^eo?  ^v  6  X0709  or  vv^  t]  rj/nepa  iyevero.  This  is 
clearly  set  forth  by  the  Greek  rhetorician,  Theon,  in  his  Progy- 
mnasmata  (Spengel,  Rhetores  Graeci,  vol.  II.,  p.  83).  There  he 
says  :  TrpoaOeaei  apOpwv  ovKerc  afi^l^oXo^  ylverau  rj  Xe^i^;. 

The  various  positions  which  the  adjective  may  assume  relatively 
to  the  article  in  Attic  call  for  brief  remark.  The  adjective  may  be 
used  either  attributively  or  predicatively.  The  attributive  position 
is  a  threefold  one :  (1)  r}  o-i)  oiKia  (2)  97  olKia  rj  o-rj  (3)  olKia  r)  cnfj. 
Of  these,  the  first  is  the  simplest  and  most  natural.  The  second 
is  called  the  "oratorical,"  and  carries  with  it  6yKo<^  (Aristotle, 
Rhetoric  1407  b,  35-37).  The  third  is  not  specifically  referred 
to  by  Aristotle.  In  the  Orators  it  is  the  least  frequent  of  the  three, 
and  has  been  characterized  by  Prof  Gildersleeve  as  the  "slip-shod" 
or  "negligent"  position.  It  "afiects  to  be  easy  and  familiar." 
(See  his  Justin  Martyr  A,  6,  7,  and  review  of  Merriam's  Herodotus 
in  A.  J.  P.,  6,  262,  and  A.  J.  P.,  17,  518.)  An  investigation 
of  the  relative  frequency  of  the  three  positions  in  the  Orators  and 
the  Speeches  of  Thucydides,  so  iar  as  the  category  of  the  possessive 
pronouns  is  concerned,  enables  the  writer  to  make  the  following 
statement.  In  Thucydides  the  first  position  is  the  normal  one,  the 
second  is  exceptional  (three  times),  the  third  is  found  eleven  times. 
In  the  Orators,  the  first  position  has,  as  a  rule,  the  preference. 
The  second  occurs  about  half  as  often.  The  third,  however,  is 
very  rare,  there  being  but  ten  occurrences  in  the  course  of  above 
2,000  Teubner  pages.  The  predicative  position  is  ^  twofold  one, 
the  adjective  being  found  before  or  after  both  article  and  noun.  It 
is  by  no  means  restricted  to  the  nominative  or  casus  rectus ;  for  we 
frequently  find  the  genitive,  dative,  and  accusative  cases  similarly 
used,  giving  rise  to  what  may  be  termed  "  oblique  predication." 

In  studying  oblique  predication,  it  was  found  necessary  for  a 

clear  appreciation  of  the  grammatical  phenomena  to  take  account 

of  the  participle  as  well  as  the  adjective, 

^^xi^^x^^xT  to  the  latter  of  which  Donaldson,  in  his 

PREDICATION.  .       -a     ^'  ^  a-     ^  • 

classitication   01    predicates  as  primary, 

secondary,  and  tertiary,  confined  his  view ;  for  the  participle  by 
reason  of  its  verbal  force  readily  lends  itself  to  the  expression  of 
predication  in  the  oblique  cases,  and  the  adjective  has  in  this  par- 
ticular assumed  the  function  of  the  participle.     Boiling,  The  Epic 


The  Limitations  of  the  Predicative  Position  in  Greek.         11 

and  Attic  Use  of  the  Circumstantial  Participle  (Johns  Hopkins 
University  Circulars,  December,  1897),  has  well  set  forth  the  affin- 
ity between  the  two  in  these  words :  "  The  adjective  represents  a 
quality  at  rest,  the  participle  represents  a  quality  in  motion,  and 
the  difference  between  the  two  is  a  difference  in  the  degree  of 
mobility.''  Not  only,  however,  does  the  adjective  assume  the 
function  of  the  participle,  but  the  participle  in  attribution  sinks 
to  the  level  of  the  adjective.  This  degradation  of  the  participle 
is  sufficiently  familiar  to  students  of  English  in  such  words,  e.  g., 
as  *^  interesting,''  "  charming,"  and  the  like,  which  are  ordinarily 
felt  as  adjectives. 

The  field  of  personal  observation  in  this  study  of  oblique  predi- 
cation has  been  limited  to  the  Orators  and  Thucydides.  Two 
types  in  particular  have  formed  the  basis  of  this  investigation. 
They  have  been  denominated  "  Adverbial-Dative  Type  of  Predi- 
cation "  and  "  Prepositional  Type  of  Predication." 

The  first  explicit  reference  to  the  subject  of  oblique  predication, 
which  has  come  under  the  writer's  observation,  appears  in  a  disser- 
tation written  by  S.  Elias,  Quaestiones  Lycurgeae,  Halis  Saxonum, 
1870.  On  p.  17  he  has  something  to  say  of  the  predicative  use  of 
the  adjective  in  connection  with  an  oblique  case  of  the  substantive. 
He  observes  that  the  construction  is  found  in  all  the  Orators,  but 
that  it  is  used  oftener  by  some  than  by  others.  It  is  found,  e.  g., 
four  times  in  Andocides — the  fourth  oration  is  included — three  times 
in  Antiphon,  four  times  in  Hyperides,  nine  times  in  Dinarchus. 
For  the  rest  of  the  Orators,  he  contents  himself  with  general  state- 
ments. He  remarks  that  it  occurs  often  in  Demosthenes,  oftenest 
in  Isocratrs,  whose  example  is  followed  by  Lycurgus. 

The  next  reference  to  the  same  subject  is  made  by  H.  Mayer, 
Observationes  in  Lycurgi  Oratoris  Usum  Dicendi,  Friburgi,  1889. 
On  p.  33  ff.,  Mayer  notes  the  marked  fondness  of  Lycurgus  for  the 
predicative  position,  as  it  is  called,  of  the  adjective.  "  Si  enim, 
quomodo  collocata  sint  adiectiva,  quaerimus,  oratorem  in  praedi- 
cativa  quae  dicitur  collocatione  adhibenda  quasi  exultare  intellegi- 
mus."  He  cites  a  number  of  examples  from  Lycurgus,  and  quotes 
the  figures  for  other  Orators  given  by  Elias  in  the  dissertation 
mentioned.  There  is  added  a  remark  on  the  stylistic  effect  of  the 
construction  :  "  etiam  tali  adiectivorum  collocatione  plus  ponderis 


1 2         The  Limitations  of  the  Predicative  Position  in  Greek. 

orationem  nancisci  manifestum  est."  With  this  judgment,  the 
present  writer  is  in  accord. 

It  is  quite  evident  from  the  figures  given  by  Elias  that  he  has 
examined  somewhat  carefully  the  usage  of  certain  of  the  Orators. 
If  one  has  regard  merely  to  the  number  of  occurrences,  the  state- 
ment with  respect  to  Demosthenes,  Isocrates,  and  Lycurgus  is  cor- 
rect as  far  as  it  goes;  but  looked  at  in  relation  to  the  bulk  of  Greek 
which  each  Orator  represents,  the  statement  is  far  from  correct. 

A  table  of  the  usage  of  the  Orators  and  Thucydides,  in  which 
the  speeches  of  Thucydides  are  separated  from  the  narrative,  is 
subjoined,  giving  the  number  of  predicative  adjectives  or  parti- 
ciples used  by  each  writer.  Only  those  orations  generally  con- 
sidered genuine  are  included.  In  the  case  of  Demosthenes,  the 
division  of  Blass  (Dindorf's  edition,  revised  by  Blass,  vol.  i,  pp. 
45-6)  has  been  followed. 

Range  of  Oblique  Predication. 

Pred.  Adjs. 
and  Pics.        Teuhner  pages.     Percentage. 

Lycurgus 33  45  .73 

Thucydides  (Speeches)...  70  125  .56 

"           (Narrative).  81  473  .17 

Isocrates 189  508  .37 

Dinarchus 11  54  .20 

Lysias 28  200  .14 

Pseudo-Lysias 19  17  1.12 

Isaeus 16  138  ,12 

Antiphon 11  99  .11 

Demosthenes 73  737  .10 

Pseudo-Demosthenes....  45  521  .09 

Hyperides 4  44  .09 

Aeschines 17  188  .09 

Andocides 3  67  .04 

Pseudo-Andocides 2  12  .17 

An  examination  of  this  table  yields  the  following  results :  — 
Pseudo-Lysias,  Lycurgus,  Thucydides  (Speeches),  Isocrates,  and 
Dinarchus  stand  out  from  the  rest  in  the  preference  they  give  to 
this  construction.    At  the  opposite  pole  stands  Andocides,  to  whom 


The  Limitations  of  the  Predicative  Position  in  Greek.         13 

the  construction  was  in  no  wise  congenial.  Of  the  remaining  Ora- 
tors, we  may  say  generally  that  they  pursued  a  middle  course.  A 
sharp  difiPerence  is  noticeable  between  the  usage  of  Thucydides  in 
his  speeches  and  in  his  narrative.  Especially  striking  is  the  large 
use  in  the  Epitaphios  of  Pseudo-Lysias. 

The  foregoing  results  warrant  the  conclusion  that  the  true  home 
of  oblique  predication  is  not  in  simple  narrative  which  keeps  close 
to  the  language  of  everyday  life ;  on  the  contrary,  it  is  quite  with- 
drawn from  that  sphere,  and  is  found  in  language  which  aims  to 
be  elevated,  weighty,  impressive,  and,  in  a  word,  strives  after 
effect.  Hence  the  marked  preference  for  it  in  that  much-discussed 
specimen  of  epideictic  oratory,  the  Epitaphios.  Hence  the  favor 
it  finds  with  Thucydides,  when  he  is  striving  to  be  impressive. 
Hence,  too,  the  fondness  for  it  shown  by  Lycurgus,  and,  in  a  less 
pronounced  manner,  by  Isocrates  and  Dinarchus.  Hence,  on  the 
other  hand,  the  marked  avoidance  of  it  by  Andocides,  who  was  not 
swayed  by  the  schools  of  rhetoric,  and  was,  perhaps,  the  least  artistic 
of  the  Orators. 

The  following  is  the  tabular  statement  of  the  results  reached  in 
an  examination  of  the  range  of  the  adverbial-dative  and  the  prepo- 
sitional type  of  predication. 

Adverbial-Dative  Type. 

Pred.  Adjs. 
and  Pics.        Teubner  pages.     Percentage. 

Thucydides  (Speeches)...  5  125  .04 

"          (Narrative).,  12  473  .025 

Lycurgus 1  45  .022 

Isocrates 6  508  .012 

Aeschines 2  188  .010 

Isaeus 1  138  .007 

Demosthenes 2  737  .0027 

Pseudo-Demosthenes 1  521  .002 

Pseudo-Lysias 1  17  .06 

Lucian 76  1268  .06 

Dion  Chrysostomus 12  708  .017 

Dion  Cassius 10  658  .015 

Diod.  Siculus 6  444  .013 


14 


The  Limitations  of  the  Predicative  Position  in  Greek. 


Prepositional  Type. 


Thucydides  (Speeches)... 
"  (Narrative). 

Dinarchus 

Demosthenes 

Pseudo-Demosthenes 

Aesehines 

Andocides 

Isocrates  

Antiphon 

Lysias 

Pseudo-Ly  sias 

Lucian 

Dion  Cassius 

Dion  Chrysostomus 

Diod.  Siculus. 


Pred.  Adjs. 
and  Ptcs. 

Teubner  pages. 

Percentage. 

7 

125 

.056 

3 

473 

.006 

2 

54 

.037 

16 

737 

.022 

2 

521 

.004 

4 

188 

.021 

1 

67 

.015 

7 

508 

.014 

1 

99 

.010 

1 

200 

.005 

1 

17 

.06 

94 

1268 

.074 

15 

658 

.023 

11 

708 

.016 

2 

444 

.005 

These  tables  yield  the  following  results  :  — 

Half  of  the  Orators  are  not  represented  at  all  in  the  adverbial- 
dative  type.  Thucydides  shows  the  same  decided  preference  for 
these  constructions  in  his  speeches  as  compared  with  his  narrative. 
Especially  is  this  to  be  seen  in  the  prepositional  type,  where  the 
proportion  is  above  9:1.  Lycurgus  is  the  foremost  of  the  Orators 
in  his  use  of  the  adv.-dative  type.  Except  in  one  possible  instance, 
he  seems  to  have  avoided  the  prepositional  type.  This  may  be  due 
to  the  small  amount  of  his  writing  which  has  come  down  to  our 
time.  Four  of  the  six  examples  of  the  adv.-dat.  type  in  Isocrates 
are  found  in  one  particular  section.  Aesehines,  while  using  both 
types  with  comparative  frequency,  prefers  the  prepositional  type. 
Especially  marked,  so  far  as  variety  of  usage  goes,  is  the  prefer- 
ence of  Demosthenes  for  the  prepositional  type.  Its  ratio  to  the 
adv.-dat.  is  about  7:1.  With  respect  to  the  usage  of  Demosthenes, 
it  may  be  remarked  that  he  uses  the  prep,  type  eleven  times  in  his 
public  orations  (ten  of  them  being  in  Forensic  speeches),  four  times 
in  his  private  orations.    Taking  bulk  into  consideration,  the  public 


The  Limitations  of  the  Predicative  Position  in  Greek.         1 5 

and  private  orations  cannot  be  differentiated  on  this  score.  The 
plain  style  of  Lysias  avoids  the  dat.  type  altogether  and  uses  the 
prep,  type  once  only,  but  that  in  an  effective  passage,  in  the  12th 
oration,  where  Lysias  himself  is  the  speaker.  The  Epitaphios 
stands  out  from  all  the  rest. 

It  is  interesting  to  compare  the  usage  of  post-classic  Greek  as 
seen  in  the  writings  of  Lucian.  In  the  dat.  type  Lucian  outdoes 
all  except  Pseudo-Lysias,  while  in  the  prep,  type  even  Pseudo- 
Lysias  is  not  to  be  excepted.  This  excessive  use  of  oblique  predi- 
cation is  the  result  of  a  desire  on  the  part  of  that  writer  to  impart 
elegance  to  his  style.  Cf.  Prof.  Gildersleeve  in  A.  J.  P.  17,  518. 
Dion  Cassius  and  Dion  Chrysostomus,  as  compared  with  Lucian, 
are  very  much  nearer  the  norm. 

As  to  the  true  sphere  of  the  adv. -dat.  and  the  prep,  type,  the 
writer  believes  that  he  is  justified  in  affirming  that,  of  the  two,  the 
second  strikes  a  decidedly  higher  note.  The  first  undoubtedly 
takes  its  rise  in  the  language  of  everyday  life.  Demosthenes  em- 
ploys it  when  characterising  his  opponents,  and  only  in  a  contempt- 
uous sense.  Thucydides,  it  is  true,  gives  it  a  higher  tone  than  it 
usually  has  by  withdrawing  it  from  its  ordinary  associations  and 
transferring  it,  as  a  rule,  to  the  naval  sphere.  The  second,  on  the 
other  hand,  is  distinctly  elevated  in  tone,  though  it  draws  near,  in 
the  hands  of  certain  writers,  to  the  language  of  ordinary  discourse. 
Demosthenes  makes  use  of  it  with  telling  effect  in  passages  intended 
to  be  impressive.  Lucian  does  not  seem  to  have  appreciated  this 
difference  of  tone  between  the  two  types.  They  are  almost  alike 
to  him.  Thucydides,  by  his  marked  preference  for  the  construction 
in  his  speeches,  and  his  corresponding  avoidance  of  it  in  his  narra- 
tive, shows  that  he  regarded  it  as  more  elegant. 

A  class  of  participles,  having  the  value  in  translation  of  an 

abstract  noun,  call  for  separate  treat- 

of  A^sStToun.      --t  '--     These  form  but  a  small 

group  in  the  Orators. 
Antiphon,  5,  35:  hi  avrov  rov  o-cDfiaro^  airoWv jjuevov. 
Andocides,  3,  27  :  €k  yap  rov  TroXe/jLOv  ')(^pov taO evro^. 
Lysias,  4,  10:  eK  ttj^  avOpMirov  ^acravi^o/jbev7j<;. 
Lycurgus,  30  :   eV  roU  AecoKpdrov^;  olKeiai^  koX  OepairaCvai^ 
^aaav  taOelac. 


16         The  Limitations  of  the  Predicative  Position  in  Greek, 


Demosthenes,  18,  57:  airo  tovtoov  i^era^o fxevcov, 

'^  47,47:  Ik  ttj^;  dvdpcoTrov  (3 aa av i^o jxevr]^. 

"  24,  98:  776/31  \rjfyovT a  rov  eviavTOV. 

This  use  of  the  participle  is  by  no  means  restricted  to  the  oblique 
cases.     For  the  nominative,  cf. 

Isocrates,    14,  49:   o  r^ap  kolvo^;  ^lo^  aTroXwXo)?  tSta?  ra? 

eXTTtSa?  eKaarov  tj/jlwv  6')(eiv  7r€7roL7}K€v. 
Demosthenes,  54,  12:  vvv  Be  tovt  eacoae  to  alfju  a'jro')(^cop7jo-av. 
This  construction  goes  back  to  Homer.     Cf. 

N  37—8  :  6(j)p^  ejjLTreBov  avOt  jjuevoiev  \  voa-Tr^aavra  ava/cTa. 
One  type  of  this  construction,  viz.,  the  predic.  ptc.  in  the  sociative 
dative  with  a/jua  and  the  like,  runs  through  Greek  literature  from 
the  very  first.  Tycho  Momrasen,  Beitrage  zu  der  Lehre  von  den 
griechischen  Prapositionen,  Berlin,  1895,  p.  65,  notes  that  Homer 
uses  it  in  three  expressions  only,  of  the  break  of  day  and  of  the 
setting  of  the  sun. 

cifjL  rjol  ^aivo fjbevri(f>Lv  8  407,  f  266,  o  396,  etc. 
ail  r)€\i(p  aViOVT  i  /j,  429,  ifr  362,  X  136. 
dfjba  8'  rjekim  KaraBvvTi  ir  366,  A  592,  S  210. 
Herodotus  goes  beyond  Epic  usage,  and  uses  afxa  quite  generally 
for  "  with."     See  Mommsen,  p.  360. 

Hdt.  2,  44:   afxa  ^vp(p  oIkl^o jjuevrj. 

"    3,  86  :  afjua  rw  liTTrcp  tovto  TrotijaavTo. 
"     1,  8  :  dfjLa  Be  klOcjvi  e kBvo fxevcp. 
With  these  participles,  Helbing,  Ueber  den  Gebrauch  des  echten 
und  sociativen  Dativs  bei  Herodot,  Karlsruhe,  1898,  p.  80,  rightly 
compares 

Hdt.  3,  134:   av^o/Mevay  yap  rm  o-cofjuari  crvvav^ovTai  etc. 
Thucydides  uses  a//,a  with  the  dative  much  in  the  same  way  as 
Xenophon  does  later.    42  out  of  53  exx.  are  time-limitations.    See 
Mommsen,  p.  383.     e.  g., 

Thuc.  2,  2  :  dfia  rjpL  ap^o fJiev(d. 

"      2,  6:  dfjua  yap  ry  ecroBq)  y cyvo jxevT). 
^'      3,  1  :   dfjua  toS  aLTq>  aKfid^ovTL. 
Cf.  Aristophanes,  Eq.  520 :  dfjua  ral<;  TroXtalf;  Kar toixrai,^. 
In  Xenophon,  besides  the  Epic  usage,  we  find  kindred  expres- 
sions : 

Xen.  Anab.  7,  7,  39  :  avv  tol<;  6eoh  elBocr  l. 


The  lAmitations  of  the  Predicative  Position  in  Greek,         17 

Xen.  Cyropaedia  8,  7,  6  :  crvv  roS  ^poz^o)  irpolovn, 
Cf.  Mommsen,  p.  364.^ 

In  addition  to  the  examples  of  the  particular  type  just  noticed, 
the  following  may  be  cited  as  illustrative : 

Hdt.  1,  34:  yLtera  he  X6\(ova  ol'x^o fievov, 

"      2,  22  :  dirb  tt)  fc  o  fiivr]  <;  '^tovo^. 

"  '^         eVl  Xiovi  IT  ecr  0  V  arj. 

Thuc.  1 ,  100  :  TO  'x^copiov  at  'Ez^i/ea  ohol  kt  t  ^6  fievov. 

"      2,  49  :  /jL€ra  ravra  XaxpTjaavra. 

"      6,  3  :  fjuera  XvpaK0vo-a<;  o  I  k  i  a  6  €  l  (ra<^. 

"      7,42:  Bta  Tr}v  AeKeXecav  r  e  L')(^i^o  fjuevTjv. 
Xen.  An.  7,  7,  12  :  97  %«/)<x  iro  p  6  ov  fjuevrj  eKvirei  avrov. 
Lucian,  Vera  Hist.  2,  43  :  e/c  roO  vSaT0<;  h  tecrrwr  o<^, 

*'  "  "     2,  5  :  airo  tmv  KXahcov  k  cv  o  v  fju  ev  cov. 

Dion  Cassius,  58,  27,  2  :  Sia  rov  SpdorvWov  (To^corara  rov 

To^eptov  /juera'x^eLpco-d/juevov. 

J.  E.  Sandys  in  a  note  to  Dem.  21,  49,  where  he  says  that  iravr^ 
i^rjTao-jjLev^  is  equivalent  to  iravTcnv  e^€Ta(Tc<;  and  ravr  d/jbeXovfiev^ 
to  Tovrcov  djueXeiaj  remarks  that  it  is  characteristic  of  Greek  and 
Latin  to  prefer  to  use  a  passive  participle  in  agreement  with  a  sub- 
stantive, instead  of  using  the  corresponding  noun  followed  by  the 
genitive.  Marchant,  in  a  note  to  Thuc.  vii.  28,  says  that  the  idiom 
is  less  common  in  Greek  than  in  Latin.  This  statement  in  regard 
to  Latin  requires  severe  modification.  Its  beginnings  in  Latin  are 
very  modest,  and  certainly  in  no  wise  prophetic  of  its  development. 
Rhetoric  became  its  foster-parent,  and  Livy  and  Tacitus  evinced  a 
predilection  for  it.  See  Schmalz,  Lateinische  Syntax,  2d  ed.,  p. 
439.  For  the  Greek  side,  see  Gildersleeve  in  A.  J.  P.,  13,  258  ff., 
19,  463,  if.,  and  20,  352,  ff.,  and  Stahl  in  Rh.  M.  54,  1  and  3. 

In  a  number  of  cases  which  might  be  cited  in  this  connection, 
the  plasticity  of  the  participle  admits  of  varied  conception.  These 
consequently  have  not  been  considered. 

^  The  usage  of  a/xa  in  the  Orators  is  very  restricted.  See  a  Programm  by  L. 
Lutz,  Die  Casus-Adverbien  bei  den  attischen  Eednern,  Wiirzburg,  1891,  p.  33. 
No  case  occurs  where  the  predicative  participle  is  expressed.  Five  out  of  sixteen 
cases  are  found  in  Antiphon,  a  representative  of  the  older  Attic. 


18        The  Limitations  of  the  Predicative  Position  in  Greek. 

The  Greek  dative,  unlike  the  Latin  dative,  which  is  purely  per- 
sonal and  is  not  governed  by  a  preposition,  is  <a  mixed  or  syncre- 

tistic  case.     The  elements  which  have 

TYPE  OF  PREDICATION,    ^^^^v   regarded  as  three  in  number. 

They  are  the  true  dative^  such  as  we 
find  in  Latin,  the  locative^  and  the  instrumental.  These  three  have 
become  fused  in  such  a  way  as  to  make  it  very  difficult  at  times  to 
determine  which  conception  was  present,  or,  at  least,  uppermost  in 
the  mind  of  the  Greek.  The  situation,  however,  is  made  less  com- 
plicated, and  greater  unity  is  seen  to  prevail  amid  seeming  diversity, 
if  what  is  generally  conceived  as  instrumental  is  conceived  as  soci- 
ative  or  comitative.  The  idea  that  means  is  only  a  species  of 
accompaniment  is  presented  in  a  convincing  manner  by  Professor 
Gildersleeve  (yLtera  and  crvv  in  A.  J.  P.  8,  218  ff.),  who,  in  speaking 
of  the  language  of  Homer,  says  :  "  There  was  no  difference  in  con- 
ception between  avv  Tev^^^^  ^^^  ^^^  ^^oS.  The  distinction  is 
purely  modern.  What  we  regard  as  subordinate,  as  a  mere  append- 
age, was  not  such  to  the  primitive  man.  The  man's  weapons, 
horses,  chariot,  were  an  extension  of  his  individuality,  and  the 
feeling  is  by  no  means  dead,  as  is  attested  by  the  proper  names 
given  to  arms,  to  coaches,  to  vessels,  and  by  the  affectionate  femi- 
nine pronoun  so  often  employed  in  familiar  English  of  utensils  of 
all  kinds.'' 

The  sociative  dative  begins  very  simply  in  Homer,  and  at  the 
same  time  quite  naturally.  The  writer  is  in  accord  with  the  view 
of  the  genesis  of  this  dative  which  was  presented  recently  by  Fr. 
Stolz,  Der  attributive  Gebrauch  von  avTo^  beim  sociativen  Dativ, 
Wiener  Studien,  20,  p.  244  ff.  Stolz  appears  to  have  overlooked 
the  fact  that  meritorious  work  had  already  been  done  in  this  field 
by  Holzweissig,  Ueber  den  sociativ-instrumentalen  Gebrauch  des 
griechischen  Dativ  bei  Homer,  Burg,  1885.  The  dative  in  Homer, 
in  and  by  itself,  sufficed  to  express  accompaniment.  Holzweissig 
and  Stolz  give  examples  of  this.     We  may  cite  : 

cl>a(rrydvq>  dt^a<;  (E  81,  K  456,  6  88). 

dta-o-cov  S  €7%et  (A  484). 

XiriTOLf;  dtacrwv  (P  460). 

TolaLV  eir€LT    rjiacrov  (S  506). 


The  Limitations  of  the  Predicative  Position  in  Greek.        19 

The  sociative  sense  of  the  simple  dative  survives  in  the  subse- 
quent literature.  As  Holzweissig  points  out,  it  appears  most  un- 
mistakably in  prose  when  the  dative  is  used  with  the  names  of 
persons  in  military  expressions,  e.  g. : 

Hdt.  5,  99:  ol  'Adyvacoi  diriKearo  etKOo-i  vr^vai. 

Thuc.  8,  38  :   ol  KeK  rrjf;  Aeafiov  ^AOrjvaloi,  ijBrj  Sca^effrjfco- 

T€<;  €<;  Tr]v  Xtoi^  rfj  (tt par ta. 
Ps.-Lys.   2,  32  :    elSore^i  8'  ore  .   .   .   iirtirXevo-avTe^^   ;^tXta^9 
vavcrlv  ep7]fjL7]v  rrjv  iroXiv  XrjyjrovraL. 

Cf.  Helbing,  p.  84  ff.,  for  a  list  of  similar  expressions  in  Herodotus. 

In  considering  the  sociative  sense  of  the  simple  dative,  it  will 
be  helpful  to  notice  in  this  connection  one  of  the  most  interesting 
and  striking  phenomena  of  Greek  with  which,  moreover,  we  are, 
in  a  measure,  familiar.  It  is  the  use  of  the  dative  with  avro^  to 
express  accompaniment.  Monro,  Homeric  Grammar,  p.  138,  note, 
remarks  that  in  such  a  phrase  as  avrolf;  o^eXolac  (f  77),  which  he 
explains  "  with  the  meat  sticking  to  the  spits  as  before,"  the  soci- 
ative sense  is  emphasised  by  the  addition  of  avToi<;,  and  adds  that, 
without  such  an  addition,  there  would  generally  be  nothing  to 
decide  between  the  diiferent  possible  meanings  of  the  dative,  and 
consequently  a  preposition  {avv  or  afjua)  would  be  needed.  But, 
after  all,  if  avT6<;  is  dropped,  all  that  is  lost  is  the  emphasis  which 
it  imparted  to  the  expression.  This  has  been  made  sufficiently 
clear  by  Stolz  (1.  c).  A  further  cause  for  misconception  has  been 
the  occasional  use  o^  crvv  along  with  avroq  in  the  same  construction. 
This  has  led  Kriiger,  Dial.  48,  15,  16,  and  other  scholars  to  the 
wrong  conclusion  that  we  have  an  ellipsis  of  avv  in  those  cases 
where  it  does  not  occur.  Holzweissig  (1.  c.)  remarks  that  the  mere 
proportion  of  occurrences,  in  Homer,  of  avT6<;  with  the  dative,  and 
of  (Tvv  followed  by  avT6<;  with  the  dative,  shows  that  the  form  with- 
out the  preposition  is  the  original  one.  The  reason  why  avv  is 
found  along  with  the  dative,  he  observes,  is  that  the  dative  has 
assumed  the  functions  of  the  dativus  comitativus.  Had  he  gone 
further  and  considered  this  as  applicable  to  the  dative  unaccom- 
panied by  avTOf;,  he  would  have  anticipated  Stolz  at  this  point. 

The  usage  of  avro^;  in  this  idiom  for  different  authors  is  given 
by  Mommsen,  Beitrage,  p.  62.    It  occurs  in  Homer  thirteen  times, 


20        The  Limitations  of  the  Predicative  Position  in  Greek. 

(jvv  being  added  in  three  instances.  Mommsen's  theory,  which 
the  writer  is  unable  to  accept,  is  that  avrt^^  like  gvv^  serves  to  raise 
the  weak  instrumental  to  a  sociative.  The  usie  of  avTo^  with  the 
singular  is  peculiar  to  comedy  and  Homer.  The  tragic  use  is  con- 
fined to  the  plural,  and,  as  a  general  rule,  is  concerned  with  things. 
In  Aristophanes  (Mommsen,  p.  649),  it  is  used  only  of  things,  but 
in  both  singular  and  plural,  and  with  or  without  the  article.  The 
use  of  the  article  is  restricted  to  comedy  and  prose.  For  comedy,  cf. 
Aristophanes,  Yespae,  170 :  avrolai  roh  Kavdr)\iOL<;. 

"  "       1449:   avTolarc  rol^  KavddpoL<;. 

"  Equites,  849  :  avTolai  toI<;  iropira^iv. 

"  Nubes,  1 302  :  avTol<;  rpo')(ol<;  toI<;  aolaL  koX 

^vvcopLaiV. 

"  Ranae,  560  :  avroU  roU  TaXdpoi<;. 

Eupolis,  Arj/jbOL  37  :   avralo-t  Tai<^  KvrjfxaLaiV. 
For  this  last  example,  cf.  Meineke,  ii,  p.  475  if.,  Kock,  Frag. 
Com.  Gr.  i,  p.  284,  and  Henri  Weil  in  the  Eevue  Critique,  vol. 
12,  (N.  S.),  1881,  p.  293  ff.     Weil,  in  brief,  makes  this  expression 
equivalent  to  avTalai  rai^;  pl^aiatv.    . 

Turning  to  prose,  note 
Herodotus,  6,  32:  koI  rd*;  7r6\ca<i  iveTrl/jLTrpao-av  avTolcri  toI<; 
IpolcTL. 
Bekker  struck  out  the  article  here,  and  was  followed  by  Kriiger. 
In  a  number  of  passages  from  Herodotus,  the  MSS  vary  as  to  the 
use  or  omission  of  the  article.  Kallenberg,  Commentatio  critica 
in  Herodotum,  Berlin,  1884,  p.  15  (cf  Helbing,  p.  86),  after  an 
examination  of  the  passages  in  question,  arrives  at  the  conclusion 
that  Herodotus  was  not  uniform  in  his  usage,  but  sometimes  ad- 
mitted, sometimes  omitted,  the  article.  The  principle  that  Kallen- 
berg has  laid  down  (Jahresber.  des  philol.  Yereins  zu  Berlin,  1897, 
p.  204  ff.),  in  the  course  of  an  excellent  contribution  on  the  article 
with  7ra9,  ovto<;,  eKelvo^,  and  oSe  in  Herodotus,  that  the  article  is 
used  because  of  the  noun  with  which  it  is  associated  and  not  because- 
of  the  pronoun,  is  applicable  also  to  avro^;.  The  omission  of  the 
article  in  prose  can  be  explained,  as  has  already  been  indicated,  by 
Epic  survival,  e.  g.,  avrolai  dvBpdo-i,,  which,  as  Kallenberg  remarks, 
seems  to  be  a  crystallized  expression  used  first  by  Herodotus,  then 


The  Limitations  of  the  Predicative  Position  in  Greek.       21 

hy  Thucydides  and  Xenophon.  Only  one  instance  of  auro?  with  the 
sociative  dative  was  observed  in  the  Orators,  viz.,  in  Demosthenes, 
22,  68  :  avTat<;  7reSat9. 

But  words  may  occupy  the  predicative  position  so-called,  with- 
out at  the  same  time  conveying  a  predicative  signification.  Such 
the  writer  believes  to  be  the  case  with  avrof;  and  certain  other 
words,  as  aKpo<;,  jjLeao^,  etc.  They  are  simply  appositive.  Of 
datives  which  undoubtedly  carry  a  predicative  signification,  the 
following  may  be  cited  by  way  of  illustration  : 

Hdt.  6,  8  :  TreTrXrjpco/jLevyai,  rfja-t  vrjvorl  Traprjcrav  ol  "lojz^e?. 
Thuc.  1,  6  :  avetfievy  rfj  BcaiTr}. 
Aristoph.  Eq.  280  :  /cevrj  rfj  Koikia. 
Plato,  Legg.  880  A  :  's^rtkal^  ral^;  x^patv. 
Xen.  Anab.  1,  8,  1  :  IBpovvrc  to5  'ittitw. 
"     Hell.  3,  4,  11  :   (jyacBp^  rco  TrpoacoTrq). 

The  sociative,  rather  than  the  instrumental,  sense  of  such  datives 
as  the  foregoing  is  now  recognized  by  Kiihner-Gerth,  Ausfuhrliche 
Grammatik  der  griech.  Sprache,  §425,  5,  as  a  comparison  with  the 
preceding  edition  will  readily  show.  "Attendant  Circumstances," 
"  Manner,'^  and  the  like,  are  simply  special  manifestations  of  the 
same  dative. 

It  may  be  remarked  at  this  point  that  the  participle  employed  is 
generally  the  perfect,  occasionally  the  present.  The  reason  for  the 
predominance  of  these  particular  tenses  is,  in  the  writer's  opinion, 
that  given  by  Boiling  (The  Participle  in  Hesiod — Oath.  Univ. 
Bull.,  vol.  III.,  p.  466,  Washington,  1897)  for  the  Homeric  use  of 
participles  in  direct  attribution.  "  The  reason  for  the  predominance 
of  these  tenses  (i.  e.,  the  present  and  the  perfect)  is  that  lasting 
actions  are  the  ones  that  lend  themselves  most  readily  to  attribu- 
tion, and  these  are  to  be  found  either  in  the  continued  action  of 
the  present  or  in  the  perfect  as  denoting  attitude  and  resulting  con- 
dition." The  relation  of  the  participle  to  the  adjective,  so  far  as 
numbers  go,  is  in  the  Orators  1:12,  in  Lucian  1  : 6. 

A  widely  different  view  of  these  datives  is  that  of  Classen  who, 
in  the  course  of  his  remarks  on  the  expression  areXel  rfj  viKrj 
{Thuc.  8,  27,  6),  notes  that  we  have  here  a  '^  Dative  Absolute,"  of 
which  he  has  given  several  examples  from  Homer,  Beobachtungen 


22        The  Limitations  of  the  Predicative  Position  in  Greek, 

tiber  den  hom.  Sprg.,  p.  155.  Compare,  further,  his  notes  on? 
Thucydides,  1,  6,  3  and  2,  100,  6,  which  bear  in  the  same  direc- 
tion. Monro,  Homeric  Grammar,  p.  213,  recognizes  in  a  number 
of  these  examples  from  Homer  an  approach  to  a  "  Dative  Abso- 
lute.^' He  characterizes  them  as  extensions  or  free  applications  by 
the  help  of  the  participle  of  the  true  dative  {dat.  eth.).  ClassenV 
use  of  the  term  '^Dative  Absolute '^  has  received  merited  strictures 
from  Spieker,  Genitive  Absolute  in  the  Attic  Orators,  A.  J.  P.,  6, 
p.  315.  The  proper  point  of  view,  in  the  writer's  judgment,  from 
which  to  regard  these  datives  is  given  by  Kiihner-Gerth,  vol.  ri. 
§423, 18,  e,  f,  and  g.     See  also  W5lfflin's  Archiv,  vol.  8,  p.  48  ff. 

Having  treated  of  the  origin  of  the  adverbial-dative  type  of 
predication,  the  writer  proposes  to  set  forth  here  the  usage  of  the 

classical  period,  with   the  historians, 

ADV.-DAT.  TYPE.  especially  Thucydides,  and  the  Orators 

(a)  Classical  Greek.  ^  -^  .         /         .     ,         -p  ^ 

as  the  basis  or  this  study.     By  way  of 

comparison  and  contrast,  the  usage  of  post-classical  Greek  will  be 
noted,  with  Lucian  as  the  model  for  this  period,  and  an  endeavor  will 
be  made  to  indicate  any  deviations  from  the  norm  of  classical  usage. 

The  sociative,  or  comitative,  dative  may  conveniently  be  subdi- 
vided into  (1)  dative  of  military  accompaniment,  (2)  dative  of 
attendant  circumstances,  (3)  dative  of  means  and  instrument.  Some 
of  the  examples  considered  under  one  of  these  heads  might  very 
well  be  considered  under  another. 

(1)  Dative  of  Military  Accompaniment:  — 

Hdt.  6,  8,  1  :    TreTrXr] pco/jbivrjo-i    Trjac    vrjvcrl    iraprjaav 

ol  "1 0)1/69. 

Thuc.  4,  55,  1  :  aOpoa  fxev  ovSa/juov  ry  Bvudfjuet  avrerd- 

^avTo. 
lb.   6,  34,  5:  roS   Ta')(^vvavTovvTi   dO po(OTep(p   kov(J)l~ 

aavTe<;  Trpoa^aXotev. 
lb.  6,  37,   1:  fjueya  <ydp  to  koI  avratf;  Tat<;  vaval  kov- 

(j)ac(;  ToaovTov  ifkovv  Bevpo  KOficaOrjvai,. 
lb.    6,   43,    1  :    (roo-fjBe    ijSr)    rjj    Trapaa Kevfj   ^KOtjvolol 

dpavT6<;). 
lb,  8,  80,  1:  dO p6ai<i  ral^  vavalv  .  .  .  ov/c  dvravijyovTO^ 
lb.    8,    104,    5:    do-Oeviai    koI    Steariraa/juivacfi    rai^;^ 
vaval   Kadia-TavTO . 


The  Limitations  of  the  Predicative  Position  in  Greek,         23 

The  foregoing  examples  exhaust  the  list  of  datives  of  military 
accompaniment  of  this  type.  None  were  found  in  the  Orators, 
where  their  occurrence  would  only  be  incidental.  Although  Herod- 
otus frequently  uses  the  sociative  dative,  the  example  cited  above 
is  the  only  one  of  this  type.     Helbing,  p.  84  ff.,  has  overlooked  it. 

Similar  datives  from  Xenophon  may  be  noticed  here: 

Anab.  1,  7,  14  :  a-vvTeTay/jbiva)  rcS  (TTparevfiarL. 

lb.  4,  2,  1 1  :  opOiOLf;  tol^  X6')(^oc<;. 

Hell.  1,  5,  14  :  Bc€(T7rapfjL€vac<;  Tal<;  vavaL 

In  comedy  may  be  noted  : 

Aristophanes,  Acharu.,  686  :  crTpoyyv\oi,<;  roU  prj^aai. 
"  Ranae,  903 :  avTOTrpifjuvoc^i  TOi<;  Xoyoto-iv. 

"  Equites,  205  :  dyKvXai';  Tal<;  ')(6pa-iv. 

(2)  Dative  of  Attendant  Circumstances  :  — 

Thuc.  1,  6,  3:  koL   avet/juevrj  ry    hiairr)  69  to  Tpv(f>6p(0' 

repov  fierecrryaav. 
lb.   1,   120,  5:    ivdv/juelraL   jap   ovSel<;   o/jboia   rj)   Trlo-rei, 

Kol   epyo)  e'Tr6^ep')(erai. 
lb.  2,  38,  2:  /jujSev  olKeiorepa  rfj  airoXavaeu  ra  avrov 

ayaOa  yiyvoybeva  KapirovaOai. 
lb.  2,  100,  2:   Kol  rfj  ctWrj  irapacr /cevfj  KpeiaaovL. 
lb.  3,  38,  1  :    0   yap   iraOoov  roS  Bpdaavrc   d^^Xvrepa  ttj 

opyfi  iire^epx^Tac. 
lb.  6,  55,  3:  ttoWq)   to5   irep lovt l  rod    da(f}a\ov<;  Kare- 
/cpdrrjae. 

Classen  sees  in  the  first  and  last  examples  an  equivalent  for  the 
genitive  absolute  construction.  The  dative  point  of  view,  as  has 
already  been  remarked,  forbids  such  a  comparison.  In  the  second 
example,  the  MSS  read  o/juota,  which  some  editors  adopt.  The  edi- 
tors are  warranted  in  making  the  slight  change  of  accent.  In  the 
last  case,  we  have  a  favorite  Thucydidean  use  of  the  neuter  parti- 
ciple.    It  is  equivalent  to  ttoXXtj  rrj  Trepcovcrla. 

The  usage  of  the  Orators  is  as  follows : 

Pseudo-Lysias  2,  18  :   eXevdepat^   ral^  i/rup^a??  iiroXt- 
TevovTO. 


24         The  Limitations  of  the  Predicative  Position  in  Greek. 

Isocrates  15,  126  :  avaireTTTaixevaLfs  avrov  ehe')(pvTo  Tal^ 

7ruXat9.  ♦ 

Isaeus  6,  59:  XoLhoprjo-eraL  fjbeydXrj  rfj  (jycovfj. 
Lycurgus   145  :    6  ^rfKo^orov  rrjv  'Attlktjv  elvau  (f>avepa 

rfj  -x^r ?7  <5f)  ft)   KaTa'\jr7)<l)L(Td/jb€vo<;. 
Demosthenes  19,  199:  ipet  Xafjuir pa  rfj  (l)cov7J. 
lb.    57,    11  :    il3\a(r(f)r)/jLet    Kari/jLOv    ra')(v    koX    iroWa    koX 

fJUerydXr)    T7J    (j)C0V7J. 

lb.  43,  82  :   ^avepa  rfj  -x^t^c^oj   €'\jr'r}(j>[(TaTO. 

Aeschines  1,  19  :  09  ovBe  KaOapw  ScaXeyerac  to3  o-ay/jbar l. 

lb.  2,  7:  dXX'  tcrrj  ry  evvoia  dKOvovTa<^. 

The  position  of  dvaireTrraixevai^,  in  the  second  example,  is  due 
to  Isocrates'  avoidance  of  hiatus.  The  contemptuous  use  of  (f)(ovr} 
by  Isaeus  and  Demosthenes  is  noteworthy.  In  the  case  of  Pseudo- 
Demosthenes  43,  82,  Blass  revises  Dindorf's  text  by  striking  out 
the  article.  He  has  MS  warrant  (S  F  Q).  The  reason  he  assigns 
^^At  metaphorice  hie  usurpatur  i/r^Jc^o?/'  does  not,  in  the  writer's 
opinion,  carry  any  weight.  In  Aeschines  1,  19,  for  o-dofiarL  there 
is  a  V.  1.  (TTOfjuaTc.  There  is  no  doubt,  however,  of  the  oblique 
predication.  With  io-y  rfj  evvoLa  of  Aeschines  2,  7,  may  be  com- 
pared ofjboia  rfi  iricTTei  of  Thucydides  1,  120. 

Especially  to  be  noted  are  the  substantives  in  the  foregoing  list. 
They  are  such  words  as  -yjrvxv*  <t>(ovi],  '\lrrj(f)0(},  crcofia,  evvoia.  The 
list  is  important  for  this  reason,  that  it  gives  us  the  key  to  the 
true  home  of  the  construction  we  are  studying.  Further  verifica- 
tion will  be  found  in  the  pages  following.  The  adverbial-dative 
type  of  predication  centres  round  the  body  and  its  parts.  The 
principle  of  analogy  gives  the  construction  a  wider  range. 

The  article  in  each  of  the  examples  just  cited  may  be  considered 
as  a  weakened  or  fainter  possessive.  (Cf.  Kriiger,  Sprachlehre  50^ 
2,  3).  The  Attic  Greek  was  wont  to  use  the  article  in  character- 
ising various  objects  with  which  he  stood  in  some  personal  relation, 
where  we  generally  prefer  the  possessive  pronoun.  Our  English 
idiom  requires  the  omission  of  the  possessive  in  a  number  of  cases. 
For  instance,  we  should  not  say  '  with  his  voice  loud,'  but  ^  in  a 
loud  voice.'  We  may  say,  however,— and  this  helps  us  to  under- 
stand the  idiom — *  with  his  eyes  open,'  ^  with  his  fists  clenched,'  etc. 


The  Limitations  of  the  Predicative  Position  in  Greek,         25 

(3)  Dative  of  Means  and  Instrument :  — 

Thuc.  2,  49,  5:  rfj  BLyfrr)  airavarw  ^vveypfxevoL. 

lb.   2,  76,  4:  a^iecrav  rrjv   Sokov   ')(^a'\apalf;    Tal<;    dXv- 

crea L .  . 
lb.  7,  36,  3  :    aTepicfyoc^   fcal   Tra^ecr^,   7rp09   KOtXa    koI 

aaOevrj  Trapep^oi^re?,  rot?  i  fju^oXoLf; . 

Of  the  Orators,  Isocrates  is  the  only  one  represented  under  this 
head. 

Isocr.  10,  23:    av   yap   [xovov   rolf;    6ir\oc<;    i/coo-fi^o-avro 

irapaTrXrjo- Loi,<;  etc. 
lb.    15,    47:    Kal    yap    rfj    Xe^et    iroLrjTLKwrepa    Kal 

TTOiKcXcorepa  ra?  7rpd^6t,<i  BrjXovcrt   .... 

en    Se    ral<^    dWai,<;    lBeai<;    iin^ave  - 

arepat^    Kal    TrXeioa- iv    okov    rov    \6yov 

BcocKova-LV. 

In  the  first  of  these  examples  from  Isocrates,  the  position  of 
TrapairXr^a-LOL^  is  evidently  due  to  the  desire  of  avoiding  hiatus. 
The  second  shows  a  carefully  studied  and  symmetrical  arrangement 
of  the  different  parts  of  the  sentence. 

All  the  examples  of  the  sociative  dative  in  oblique  predication 
found  in  Herodotus,  Thucydides  and  the  Orators,  have  now  been 
considered.  A  few  more  datives  involving  the  same  principle,  but 
not  sociative,  may  be  noted  at  this  point. 

Thuc.   2,   100:    avrov^    iroWa'TrXacrim    roS     ofjuiXcp    e? 
KLvBvvov  KaOiaTaaav. 

Some  conceive  this  as  dative  of  cause ;  others  as  dative  of  the 
indirect  object. 

Thuc.  1,  30:  /^e^/o^    ov    KopivOioi,    irepnovTi    rco   Oepet 
'n'6fi'^avT6<;  vav^  Kal  crTpartdv. 

This  is  the  dative  of  time.     With  it  has  been  compared 

Xen.  Hell.  3,  2,  25  :  irepuovTL  tm  iviavrS. 
Jowett  (Thuc.  1,  30,  note)  claims  that  the  cases  are  not  exactly 
parallel. 

Thuc.    1,    117,  1:    dcfypaKTO)    tS    arrpaTOTreSo)    iirLire- 

a-OVTEfi. 


26         The  Limitations  of  the  Predicative  Position  in  Greek. 

lb.    2,    39,    3:    aOpoa  re    ry   Swdfjuei    rjfjLcov    ovSelf;   ttg) 

7ro\efito<;  iverv')(e. 
lb.  4,  122,  5  :  T§  Kara  yrjv  AaKe^aifiovicov  lcr')(^vi  dvco^e- 

Xel  'm(TT€vovT6<;. 
lb.  7,  39,  2  :  otto)?  ....  /cat  BcoXljov  av6i<;   kol  avOrj/juepov 
air poaho KrjTOL<;  toI<;  ^A67}vaioi<;  i'Tri')(€L- 
paxro. 

These  are  datives  of  the  indirect  object,  with  which  the  predica- 
tive adjective  stands  in  agreement,  and  are  not  to  be  confounded 
with  the  sociative  dative.  It  is  not  always  easy  to  decide  which 
kind  of  dative  we  have,  as,  e.  g.,  in  the  instance  cited  above  under 
dative  of  military  accompaniment  (Thuc.  4,  55,  1).  If  it  refers  to 
the  Peloponnesians,  we  have,  undoubtedly,  the  dative  of  military- 
accompaniment,  in  other  words,  the  sociative  dative.  If  the 
Athenians  are  referred  to,  we  have  the  dative  of  the  indirect 
object.  Jowett  prefers  the  former,  Kriiger  the  latter,  inter- 
pretation. 

The  following  datives  in  the  Orators  may  be  noted  : 

Antiphon  3^6:  TroXeyu-twrcS  tovtov  ^iXec  TrepcTrecrcov. 

lb.  5,  12:  dv(o fioT o i<;  7rc(TT6V(TavTa<;  tol<;  fxaprv povcr l. 

Lysias  32,  14:  eTnTv^ovra^i  i K^effXr] fievo)  rw  ^l^Xlw. 

Isocrates  8,  104:  ofioiaL^;  Tal<;  av fi(j)opal^  irepLeireaov, 

Aeschines  3,  146  :  (j^epcov  ....  rbv  klvBvvov  aTrapacr K€v<p 
rfj  iroXei. 

These  are  all,  likewise,  datives  of  the  indirect  object,  with  which 
the  predicative  adjective  or  participle  stands  in  agreement. 

Lucian,  who  is  generally  conceded  to  be  the  best  of  the  Atticists, 

has  been  made  the  basis  of  this  study,  and  his  usage  is  instructive 

ADV-DAT   TYPE  ^^^  *^®  V^vioA.      One  cannot  fail  to 

(6)  Post-Classical  Greek,     ^o^i^^/  ^^  ^^^^  Lucianic  usage  of  the 

sociative-dative  type,  the  salient  fact,  to 
which  attention  has  already  been  called,  that  it  has,  first  and  chiefly, 
to  do  with  the  body  and  its  parts.  But,  looking  deeper  than  this 
general  resemblance,  it  will  be  seen  that,  while  he  observes  the 
letter  of  the  law,  he  kills  the  spirit.  The  Attic  Greek  used  it  in 
circumstances  justifying  its  use.  The  Atticist  paid  no  regard  to 
circumstances.     With  him,  it  is  simply  affectation. 


The  Limitations  of  the  Predicative  Position  in  Greek.         27 

In  classifying  the  datives,  it  is  found  that,  as  in  the  Orators,  so 
in  Lucian,  the  dative  of  mih'tary  accompaniment  finds  no  scope. 
There  remain,  then,  the  dative  of  attendant  circumstances  and  the 
dative  of  means  and  instrument.  Here,  too,  the  classification,  it 
must  be  premised,  is  one  of  convenience,  and  is  more  or  less 
arbitrary.  No  attempt  was  made  to  discriminate  the  genuine 
from  the  spurious  dialogues. 

(1)    Dative  of  Attendant  Circumstances  : — 

Lucian,  Nigrinus  4  :  arevel  koL  dvaireTrrafievr)  rfj  '^jrvxv* 

"       Timon  9  :  fjueyaXy  rfj  (^(ovfj  (saepe). 

"        lb.  41  :  avaireirrafjievoL^^  rol^i  KoXiroif;. 

"        Dial.  Deor.  20,  6  :  ro)  Tpa^rjXw  airea-TpajjL^evw. 

"       Dial.  Mar.  4,  3  :  ave(p<yiJbevoi(;  roU  ocftOdXfjboU. 

"        Dial.  Mort.  21,  1  ;  arpeirrw  too  TrpoaooTra). 

"       Menippus  9  :  r/pefiata  rfj  (j^tcvfj. 

"       lb.    18 :    rpa')(eia    kol    aTrrjvel   rfj    cficovfj.     (Cf.    Bis 
Accus.  31,  and  De  Morte  Peregr.  3.) 

"       De  Merc.  Cond.  34  :  XeTrrfj  ry  cj^oyvy. 

"       Hermotimus  1  :  fjua/tpS  roS  %poz^«. 

"       Zeuxis  4  :  vireaTokfievr)  rfj  oirXy. 

"       Quom.  hist,  conscr.  1  :  XiirapeZ  tg5  TrvperS. 

"  "  45  :     icj^LTTTTOV     6xOVfJL€V7J     TOT€     Tj) 

ryVCO/JLTJ. 

"  Eunuchus  11  :  '\jrvxp(p  toS  IBpcoTi,. 

"  Amores  1 3  :  \LTTapol<i  rol^  'yeLXeaLv. 

'*  lb.  36  :  VTrearaX/iiivq)  rS  Trj<;  (fxovrjf;  TOV(p. 

"  lb.  37  :  ryv/jbVQ)  To3  Xoyo). 

"  lb.  52  :  IXapM  to3  TrpoacoTra). 

"  Lucius  47  :  eiravOova-rj  rfj  rpcx^L. 

"  Gallus  6  :  dv6(py6(Ti  toI<;  6(^6aXfiol<;. 

**  Bis  Accus.  10  :    '\fnXS  rLp.rj(TavTe(;  ro5  Kpor(p. 

"  De  Parasito  49  :  <l>acBp(o  rS  Trpoa-coTrtp.     (Cf.  Cronos. 

16.)    W     .       , 
"       Philopseudes  24  :  irivapa  koX  avxH^^f^V^  '^V  ^^X^V- 
"       Cal.  non  tem.  cred.  24:   IXapm  koX  kco^ilk^  tS  Trpo- 

(TcoTrq). 
*^       Navigium  16  :  iroXXS  to5  yeXcoTi. 


28         The  Limitations  of  the  Predicative  Position  in  Greek. 

Lucian,  Dial.  Meretr.  4,  5  :  eTnrpo'Xfp  Ty  yXcoTrrj. 
"       De  morte  Peregr.  32 :  fivpio)  tc3  TrXrjdec. 
"        Fugitivi  10  :  arevicn  tol<;  6<f>6a\/iLOL^. 
"       lb.  33 :  pVTTcoarj  irpoaeTt  koX  jvvaiK6ia  rjj  irirTr]. 

With  a  very  few  exceptions,  the  substantives  in  the  foregoing 
list  belong  to  the  class  already  described.  fieydXr)  rfi  (f^covfj  is 
especially  frequent.  Demosthenes  used  Xafiirpa  also  in  this  con- 
nection. Lucian  seems  to  ring  all  the  changes  which  the  construc- 
tion admits  of.  This  is  suggestive  of  Lucian's  method. 
(2)  Dative  of  Means  and  Instrument :  — 
Lucian,  Tinion  21  :  iraXaia  Tjj  oBovrj. 

"       Dial.  Mort.  17,  1  :  Koikr)  rfj  %et/[)t. 

"       lb.  10,  12  :  a0^oz/ot9  roc<;  Xidot^.     (Cf.  Pise.  1.) 

"       Zeuxis  3:  aKpo/Bet  tjj  ardd/Mr).     (Cf.  Imag.  17.) 

"       Quom.  hist,  conscr.  7  :  ov  crTcvcp  tm  lo-dfjuS. 

"        lb.  34 :  TToWy  ry  dcTKrjaei  koI  crvve')(el  tS  ttovg)  koI 

^rjXo). 
"       Vera  Hist.   1,  6:    ov    rpa')(^el   irepLijxov/^evTjv   r^ 

Kv/juarL. 
"       Phal.  pr.  11 :  dXijKTOif;  ral^  6BvvaL<;' 
*'       Amores  12  :  rat?  Ko/juacf;  evdaXeanv. 
'*       Imagines  14:  evKaipw  rfj  apaei  koX  deaei. 
"       Toxaris  20  :  fMeydXo)  to5  Trvevfiarc. 
"       lb.  60  :  KapnrvXcp  to3  f  tc^et. 
"       Lucius  42  :  dOpoa  rfj  %etpt. 
"  "       51  :  TToXXoif;  roi<;  <^LXrjfi,a(TL. 

"       Bis  Accus.  10  :  djKvXo)  rS  BaKTvX(p. 
"       Anachar.  31  :  ^aOeai,  toI<;  rpavfiacrcv. 
"       De  Domo  18  :  d6p6(p  tm  KoXXet,. 
"       De  Dips.  11  ;  ttoXXoS  to5  av^p^f^' 
Dial.  Meretr.  13,  2  ;  eVt^/Juo-ot?  toi<;  o7rXot9. 
Conviv^ium  44  :  ^/jt^o-to)  p^dXa  koL  ^adel  rep  rpavfiari. 
lb.  44  :  opdS  Tft)  8aKTvX(p. 
Nero  9  :  6p6aU  tol^  heXroi^;. 

These  examples  abundantly  illustrate  Lucianic  usage.  The  fol- 
lowing examples  from  other  authors  may  alyo  be  noted.  The 
influence  of  earlier  writers  is  perceptible. 


The  lAmitations  of  the  Predicative  Position  in  Greek         29 

(1)  Dative  of  Military  Accompaniment :  — 

•    Dion  Cassius,  39,  58,  1  :  irpolibv  Se  evrevOev    Bi')(^a   Sirfprj- 

/jb€V(p  tS  <tt par  q)  . 
lb.    50,    11,     6:     aOpoa    rfj    irapaa  Kevfj    top    ^Iovlov 

lb.   50,  31,  4:    irv Kval^    Tat<;    vavalv    oXlyov  efo)  tcjv 
arevwv  Trapara^a/jbevcov. 

(2)  Dative  of  Attendant  Circumstances  :  — 

Dion  Cass.  43,  43,  2:  rjj  re  ryap  ia-Orjrt  xO'VvoTepa  iv 

iracTLV  ivTiPpvvero. 
lb.  46,  22,  4  :    ore    yovv    yv/jLVol<;    tol(;   ^i^eanv  e?   ttjv 

ayopav  iaeSpafiov. 
lb.  49,  20,  2:    iroppatOev    yap    a-(j)oBpaL<;    ral<i    0oXa2<; 

i^LKVov^evoi. 
lb.    55,    15,    7:    coare     Kadapa     koX  ai^povriarfp     Kal 

avvTroTrrq)  rfj  -^/rup^^  irpoarofiCkelv. 
Diod.  Sic.  1,  70,  5  :  pLeyaXy  ry  (jicovy.     (Cf.  1,  83,  3.) 
lb.  3,  27,  3:  KaTaKKidel^  he  adpocp  to5  ^dpeo, 
lb.  3,  29,  3:   Trdvre^  7rpoa(j)€pov(Tt  ravrrjv  d6p6oc^    rot^; 

o-cDpot<i . 
lb.  4,  48,  2  :  iairacrp^evoi^  rocf;  ^[(peai,.     (Cf.  4,  52,  4.) 

(3)  Dative  of  Means  and  Instrument :  — 

Dion    Cass.    40,    43,    3 :    eKBtM^ai    avTov<i    ck    t?}9   dyopd^ 

irXayloi'i   Kal   irXarea-L   to?9 
^[(j)€(Tv    iraiovTa^ . 
By  "  prepositional  type "  of  oblique  predication,  is  meant  ob- 
lique predication  introduced  by  a  preposition.     The  plan,  pursued 

in  the  previous  chapter,  of  noting  the 
PKEPOSITIONAL  TYPE,     ^i^^^j^^j  ^^  ^^^  ;„   j^^  i,;^^^^;. 

(o)  Classical  Greek.  i  ^  i     /» 

ans  and  Orators,  and  oi  comparing  or 

contrasting  with  it  that  of  post-classical  Greek,  is  also  followed 

here. 

Herodotus :  — 

Hdt.  5,  92,  7  :  on  iirl   ^/ru^^/ooi^  rov  iirvov  TiepLavhpo<i 

T0V9  dpTov^  irre^aXe. 

lb.  5,  29:   o/CG)9  rtva   cSotev   iv   dpea-TTj kvljj    rfj   x^PV 

dypov  ev  i^epyaa-jxevov. 


30         The  Limitations  of  the  Predicative  Position  in  Greek. 

These  are  the  only  cases  found  in  Hdt.  There  is  a  special  reason 
for  the  predicative  position  of  the  adjective  sjrvxpov,  **  Into  the 
cold  oven  "  is  an  incorrect  rendering.  It  might  be  rendered  ^'  into 
the  oven  when  it  was  cold/'  But  the  brachylogy  of  the  Greek 
has  disappeared.  apea-TrjKVirj  is  best  interpreted  avaardrw  yevo- 
fievT)  or  avaaTdT(p  iovarj.  Stein  aptly  compares  Xen.  Cyrop.  1,3: 
eV  opeivrj  ovcrr)  rrj  '^copa. 
Thucydides :  — 

Thuc.    Ij    19,   2:    /lera    dKpai,(j)VOv<i    Trjq    ^v/jb/jLa^taf; 

7]vOr](7av. 
Thuc.  2,  43,4:  7rpo9  dvev.Ovvov  rrjv  vfierepav  aKpo- 

aCTLV  . 

lb.    6,   66,   1  :  OTL  jxev  koXcl  ra  Trpoeipyaajjiiva  koI  virep 

Ka\ct)V  TO)V  fieWovTcov  6  dyobv  earau. 
lb.  6,  77,  1  :  dWa  A(optrj<;  eKevOepoi  dir^  avTovo /jlov  T7J<i 

Il€ko7rovvri(TOV. 
lb.  6,  92,  5:  Kal  avTov<^  vvv  vofjLi(TavTa<;  irepl  jxeyiaTCdv 

Br)  TO)v  8La<f>€p6vT(ov  ^ovXeveaOai, 
lb.  7,  84,  4:  koX  ev  kolXo)  ovtl  to)  TrorafjuS  iv  a(f)[(TLv 

avTOL<;  Tapa(r(To/jb€vov<;. 
lb.  1,  36,  1  :  TO  Be  Oapcrovv  fir)  Be^afxevov  dadeve^  bv  7rpo<; 
la')(^vovTa^  rov<;  €')(^dpov<;  dBeiarrepov  iao- 
fjLevov. 
lb.  1,74,  3:  vfiel<i    fiev    yap    diro    re    oIkov fievoiv    tmv 

iToXewv . 
lb.  1,84,4:  del   Be   co?    irpcx;    ev  ^ovXevo/juevovf;    rov^ 

evavT iovf;  epycp  TrapaaKeva^cofjueOa. 
lb.  8,  38,  3:  ol  Be  X^lol  ev  7ro\Xat<;  rai^  irplv  fid)(^ai<i 
7re7rXr)y/jbevoo, 
This  array  of  examples  exhibits  one  of  several  points  of  differ- 
ence between  Thucydides  and  Herodotus.     The  compactness  and 
precision  of  this  mode  of  expression  certainly  appealed  to  Thucy- 
dides.    The  first  example  has  the  rare  word  dKpai<f)vov^y  w^hich, 
as  Classen  remarks,  has  the  force  of  a  time-limitation.    The  second 
is  a  good  example  of  Thucydides'  preference  of  abstract  to  con- 
crete expressions.     Kriiger  analyses  the  third  example  thus :  KaXd 
eo-TL  rd  fjueXXovra  virep  mv.    Compactness  of  expression,  of  course, 
is  lost  by  such  a  resolution.     Classen  notes  the  use  of  the  predica- 


The  Limitations  of  the  Predicative  Position  in  Greek.         31 

tive  participle  oIkov/jl€vcov  in  the  eighth  example  to  sharpen  the 
antithesis  to  what  follows.  In  the  next  example,  Widmann 
(Boehme's  Thukydides,  revised  by  Widmann,  Leipzig,  1894)  says 
that  we  have  an  abridged  expression  for  irpcx;  toj>?  ivavTiov^;  ob? 
7r/j09  Gv  l3ov\€vofievov<;,  with  which  he  compares  Thuc.  4,  41,  2: 
ft)9  €9  irarpiha  Tavrrjv  and  6,  50,  4 :  a)9  irapa  ^t'Xof  9  koX  €vep<y6Ta<; 
^KOrjvaiov^.  This  method  of  conceiving  such  an  expression — 
others  like  it  will  be  adduced  later — seems  clumsy  and  quite  un- 
necessary. ft)9  gives  the  subjective  attitude.  0ov\6vo/j,evov(;  is 
predicative  in  the  same  way  as  olKovfievojVj  to  which  reference  has 
been  made. 

Having  concluded  an  examination  of  the  usage  of  the  historians, 
the  writer  will  now  pass  to  a  consideration  of  that  of  the  Orators. 

Antiphon :  — 

Ant.  5,  33  :  €a><;  /jl^v  ovv  jiera  XP'^^'^V'^  ttj^;  i\7riBo<; 
ijLjvcoo-Ke  fiov  Karayjrevo-dfievo';,  tovtco  hiL<T')(y- 
pi^€TO  Ta>  Xoyw. 

MS  N  omits  the  article.  MS  A  has  it.  Some  of  the  editors 
follow  the  one  MS,  some  follow  the  other.  Graffunder,  De  Cripp- 
siano  et  Oxoniensi  Antiphontis  Dinarchi  Lycurgi  Codicibus,  Berlin, 
1882,  p.  70  ff,  remarks  that  this  is  one  of  those  expressions  which 
the  Greeks  are  wont  to  enrich  with  the  article,  whereas  we  are 
wont  to  do  without  it.  He  compares  Dinarchus  1,  67  :  Tiva<;  Ta9 
iKTrtBaf;  e^ofjuev  ;  1,  77:  ev  tovtw  Ta<;  ekirihaf;  €')(eiv  ;  1,  102: 
ev  Tol(;  €^(o  ra<;  iXiriBaf;  e^ere.  Bienwald,  De  Crippsiano  et 
Oxoniensi,  etc.,  Gorlitz,  1889,  p.  29,  holds  that  the  reading  with, 
or  without,  the  article  is  correct,  but,  inasmuch  as  Antiphon  uses 
the  article  more  frequently  in  the  case  of  iXirL^,  he  would  prefer 
to  insert  it.  Cucuel,  Essai  sur  la  langue  et  le  style  de  Forateur 
Antiphon,  Paris,  1886,  p.  60,  under  ^^Adjedif  atfribut/^  notes  that 
Antiphon  quite  often  puts  an  adjective  ^'  en  relief/^  by  detaching  it 
from  the  substantive  to  which  it  belongs,  and  makes  it  bear  the 
force  of  the  thought.  In  this  way  the  phrase  acquires  much  vigor 
and  conciseness.  He  happily  illustrates  this  conciseness  of  expres- 
sion by  contrasting  the  following  expressions  : 

Ant.  6,  28  :   ouk  aXrjdrjf;  rjv  rj  alria  fjv  alrcMVTat  kot    ifjLOv. 
"     5,  38  :  ovK  oXtjOt]  ttjv  alrlav  e'Tre4>epov  fjv  yTL&VTo. 


32         The  Limitations  of  the  Predicative  Position  in  Greek. 

The  article  should  be  retained,  in  the  writer's  judgment,  not 
because  Antiphon  uses  it  more  often  than  he  omits  it  in  connection 
with  eXTTt? — for  this  has  really  little  weight  in  settling  the  ques- 
tion— but  because  the  article  is  anaphoric,  pointing  back  to  §  31 
rr]v  fjuev  iXevOepiav  eXTT iaa<^  otaeaSaL,  where  the  word  eXiri'^  is 
implied,  and,  at  the  same  time,  as  Cucuel  observes,  the  expression 
thereby  gains  in  vigor.  For  further  examples  of  the  predicative 
position  in  connection  with  eXTrt?,  cf.,  e.  g.,  Thuc.  6,  68,  2 : 
fji€yd\7)v  TTjv  iXTTiBa  tyj^  vlk7]<;  €')(ei,v.  In  late  Greek,  Luc. 
Longaevi  9:  ')(^p7](TT0Tepa<^  e^^Lv  ra<;  eXiriha^.  Cf.  Som- 
nium  2,  Zeuxis  8. 

Andocides  :  — 

Andoc.  1,  88:  oirocrai  iv  Brj fjuo Kparov fievu  rrj  iroXet 
iyevovTO. 

Lipsius  (Andocides,  Leipzig,  1888)  brackets  tt).  In  this  he 
follows  MS  A  (according  to  Dobson).  There  is  no  good  reason 
for  omitting  the  article.  The  same  expression  is  found  in  a  law 
in  Demosthenes  24,  66,  and  is  used  by  Demosthenes  in  24,  76, 
where  Kennedy  misses  the  point  by  rendering  it  "  in  a  democratical 
state."  It  is  rightly  interpreted  by  Hickie,  ^^  when  the  city  was 
under  democratic  government,"  and  by  Marchant,  "  in  the  time 
of  the  democracy."  Dobree,  Adversaria  Critica,  vol.  1,  p.  325, 
compares  iv  Srj/jLOKpaTov/jbevrj  rfj  iroXet  of  Dem.  24,  56  with  Stj/jlo- 
KpaTovfjL6V7)^  T^9  TToXeft)?  of  Dcm.  24,  58.  This  comparison  seems 
apt,  for  in  the  former  passage  iv  STjfjuoKpaTov/jLevT)  rrj  irokei  and  iirl 
TOiv  rptaKovTa  are  contrasted  expressions,  while  in  the  latter  passage 
we  have  Br)/jiOKpaTovijL6V7}<;  t7]<;  TroXeco^  and  iirl  tcjv  TpcaKovra.  In 
other  words — with  no  intention  of  applying  mathematics  to  lan- 
guage— iv  Brj/uLOKparov/jievrj  rrj  iroXei,  and  Br]fjbOKpaTov/uu6vr)<:!  rrj^; 
TToXectx}  are  practically  equivalent  expressions. 

Lysias :  — 

Lys.12,97:  ol  fiev  iv  TroXe/ubta  rfj  TrarptSi  Tot'9  TralBa^ 

KaraXiirovre^;. 
Pseudo-Lys.  2,  49:  r)ryov^6voL  rj  eZ?  ep7]fjbov  ttjv  '^^copav 
i/jL^aXelv. 
The  force  of  the  predicative  adjective  TroXefMia,  which  is  in  keep- 
ing with  the  vigorous  utterance  of  Lysias  at  this  point,  is  height- 


The  Limitations  of  the  Predicative  Position  in  Greek.         33 

ened  by  the  contrast  with  the  words  iv  ^evrj  yfj  which  follow.  The 
word  %co/9<x  frequently  has  its  adjective  in  the  predicative  position. 
Cf.,  e.g.,  Xen.  Anab,  1,  3,  14:  &)9  Bca,  c^iXias  ttj^  ')(^a)pa<i 
dTrd^et;  also  4,  1,  8.  Anab.  5,  4,  2:  009  BLd(f>cXiaf;r)<hq  Bed 
TToXe  fiia<i  iropevaovrat  Trj<;  '^copa<;.  Arrian,  Anab.  3,  3,  3  : 
8i'  iprjfiov,  ov  jxevToi  St'  dvvSpov  rrj<;  ^£wpa9. 

Isocrates :  — 

Isocr.  1,  34:  '^pco  TOL<i  \6<yoi<;   ft>9   ire  pi   dWorpiov   rev 

Trpdyfxaro^; . 
lb.  8,  12  :   Mairep  iv  dWorpia  rfj  iroXei  KLv8vv6vovr€<;. 
lb.  14,  40:  ef  drecx^iaTOV  jxev  rrjf;  7roXea)9  6pfMr}devT6<;, 
lb.  7,  17:  Trap'  ifcovrcov  rwv  ^^XXrjvcov  rrjv  rjyefjboviav 

eXa^ov.     (Cf.  also  8,  30.) 
lb.  Ep.  6,  9:  Ta9  irap^  eicovTcov  r^L^yvofjievaf;  rj  rdf;  irap^ 
d/covToyv  Tcbv  iroXtrSyv . 

In  the  first  of  these  examples  Schneider  emends  tov  to  tov  on 
the  ground  that  tov  7rpdy/jLaTo<;  is  not  in  agreement  with  Trepl  mv. 
Benseler  approves  of  this  objection.  Schneider  admits,  however, 
that  the  forms  of  the  indefinite  pronoun,  tov  and  ro),  are  used 
elsewhere  by  Isocrates  without  a  substantive.  R.  B.  Ponickau,  De 
Isocratis  Demonicea,  Stendalis,  1889,  p.  31,  refers  to  the  weakness 
in  Schneider's  position  admitted  by  himself,  and  replies  to  his 
objection  by  denying  that  there  is  anything  unusual  in  the  circum- 
stance that  the  singular  Trpdyjia  must  be  referred  to  the  plural  a)v, 
inasmuch  as  the  neuter  plural  of  pronouns  is  frequently  substituted 
for  one  thing.  That  such  a  collocation  is  not  at  variance  with 
,Isocratean  usage,  he  rightly  observes  by  referring  to  Isocr.  8,  12 
(cited  above).  Blass  does  not  depart  from  the  received  text.  The 
current  conception  of  this  construction  is  one  which  the  writer  has 
already  endeavored  to  combat  and  which  he  cannot  accept  here. 
Schneider  gives  it  as  the  usual  explanation  which  he,  otherwise, 
would  have  accepted.  It  is  this :  0)9  rrepl  dXXoTpiov  tov  irpd- 
y/juaT0<;  =  irepl  tov  irpdyfiaTOf;,  0)9  Trepl  dXXoTpiov.  He  cites  the 
rule  that  in  comparisons,  when  the  object  compared  is  placed  first, 
the  preposition  is  regularly  omitted  (cf.  Kriiger,  Griech.  Sprachl., 
68,  8),  as,  e.  g.,  Isocr.  8,  12:  wairep  iv  dXXoTpia  (sc.  TroXet)  tj 
TToXec  KcvBvvevovT€<:.     So  Ponickau,  referring  to  Isocr.  8,  12,  says 


34         The  Limitations  of  the  Predicative  Position  in  Greek, 

it  is  equivalent  to  ev  rfj  TroXec  coairep  iv  aWorpia.  To  this  method 
of  conceiviDg  this  construction,  the  writer  has  two  objections  to 
offer  :  first,  it  is  inapplicable  in  certain  cases  yet  to  be  cited,  second, 
where  applicable,  it  seems  clumsy  and  unnatural.  Analysis  is  not 
at  all  necessary.  The  predicative  adjective  contains  in  both  ex- 
amples (1,  34  and  8,  12)  the  point  of  the  passage.  It  is,  moreover, 
Isocrates'  distinct  purpose  that  the  word  aWorpiov  shall  stand  out 
prominently,  and  this  effect  is  secured  inimitably,  so  far  as  English 
is  concerned,  by  the  predicative  position.  "With  the  third  example, 
cf.  Diod.  Sic.  13,  114,  1  :  oi/ceti^  ev  ar  61^(^1  arc  l<;  ral^;  iroXeai, 
cited  by  Green,  in  a  Johns  Hopkins  dissertation,  Diodorus  and  the 
Peloponnesian  War,  Baltimore,  1899,  p.  16. 

A  special  class  of  the  prepositional  type  is  illustrated  by  such  ex- 
amples as  Isocr.  7,  17:  Trap'  eKOvrcov  TMv'FXkrjvcov.  Abandoning 
for  the  moment  the  plan  of  indicating  consecutively  the  usage  of 
the  individual  Orators,  the  writer  will  attempt  to  give  a  general 
view  of  this  class. 

With  these  examples  from  Isocrates,  are  to  be  compared : 

Dem.  20,  16  :  vtto  tcov  o^oicov  eKovroiv. 
lb.  38,  28  :  irap   eKovrayv  eXafiov  rcov  iiTLTpOTrcov. 
Aeschin.  3,  58  :  wap'  eKovrcov  tcov  'EtWrjvcov  aTroXa/Seiv. 
Dinarch.  1,  37  :  Trap"  ckovtcov  koI  ^ovXo/jievcov  tcov  'FiXXrjvcov, 

They  reappear  in  certain  post-classical  writers,  e.  g., 
Strabo  5,  3,  2  :  Trap'  ckovtcov  tcov  vtttjkocov. 
lb.  5,  2,  3  :  Trap'  ckovtcov  eXajSov  'Vcofjuaucov. 
Dion  Chrysostomus  11,  60:  Trap'  ckovtcov  tcov  olKeicov. 
Dion  Cassius  37,  3,  6  :  Trap'  ekovtcov  tcov  eTrt%a)pt&)z^. 
lb.  53,  2,  6  :  Trap'  ekovtcov  tcov  dvOpcoircov, 

(Often  with  pronouns,  e.  g.,) 

lb.  41,  35,  1  :  Trap'  ckovto^  fxov. 
lb.  43,  34,  2  :  hi  skovtcov  re  avTcov. 
lb.  46,  47,  1  :  Trap'  e/covTcov  avTcov. 
lb.  47,  29,  2  :  Trap'  6k6vto<;  avTov. 
lb.  53,  17,  3  :  Trap'  eKovai  crcfycatv. 

These  clearly  form  a  group  by  themselves.  The  type  became 
crystallised. 


The  Limitations  of  the  Predicative  Position  in  Greek.         35 

To  return  to  the  usage  of  the  individual  Orators  : 

Lycurgus  :  — 

Lye.  144:  ovh^  iv  iXevOepco  iSd<p€L  Tr]<^  7raTp[So<;  avToi<; 
racjyrjvaL  to  kuO^  avrbv  fiepof;  irapehcoKev. 

A  departure  from  the  received  text  was  proposed  by  Dobree, 
Adversaria  Critica,  Berlin,  1874,  vol.  1,  p.  325,  viz.,  the  insertion 
of  the  article  between  iXevdepw  and  eSd(f>eo.  Maetzner,  Lycurgi 
Oratio,  etc.,  Berlin,  1836,  p.  324,  noted  it,  but  did  not  adopt  it. 
Dobree  compares  for  the  article  the  use  of  ttJv  in  such  an  expres- 
sion as  evopKOTCLTT^v  Tr)v  -ylrijcjiov  iv€yK€iv  in  Lye.  13,  and  often 
elsewhere.  Exactly  similar,  in  his  opinion,  is  Dem.  24,  56  :  iv 
Brj/noKpaTov/jLevy  rfj  iroXei.  It  is,  however,  not  merely  a  question, 
as  Maetzner  sees,  as  to  whether  the  article  is  rightly  used  with 
€8(X(^o9  or  not — Maetzner  cites  Dem.  8,  39  :  rw  Trj<;  iroXeo)^  idd^et ; 
Aeschin.  3,  134  :  irepl  rod  r?)?  TrarplBofi  6Sd4>ov^ ;  Dinarch.  1,  99  : 
Trepl  Tov  eBd^ov<;  rev  rrjf;  TroXeo)?,  etc. — it  is  a  question  as  to 
whether  there  is  any  special  point  to  be  gained  by  the  use  of  the 
predicative  position.  H.  Mayer,  Observationes  in  Lycurgi  ora- 
toris  usum  dicendi,  Freiburg,  1889,  p.  19ff,  treating  of  Lycurgus's 
use  of  the  article,  says  that  he  does  not  use  it  with  the  former  of 
two  substantives,  in  proof  of  which  he  cites  the  passage  under  dis- 
cussion and  149:  /cal  ra?  'yjrycj^ov^  (f>ep6(T6aL  ra?  fjiev  virep  dva- 
(TTd(T6(o<i  T7}<;  irarpiBof; ,  etc.  This  cannot  be  urged  as  an 
argument  here.  In  favor  of  the  predicative  position  it  may  be 
said  that  the  idea  oi  freedom  is  emphasised  in  this  section.  Cf. 
144:  T(av  fiev  virep  Trj<;  iXevdepia^;  reXevTrjadvTwv.  Cf.,  also, 
for  indisputable  cases  of  the  predicative  position  in  post-classical 
Greek, 

Dion  Chrysost.  7,  19  :    rd  yap  tx^V  4>cii>€pcoT€pa,  ct)9  dv  iv 

Vypcp    T(p    i8d(f)6l,    (T7}/jLaLv6fjL€Va. 

Lucian,  Timon  57 :  iv  eXevOepa  rfj  iroXei,  and  elsewhere. 
Demosthenes :  — 

Dem.  4,  55:  vvv  S'  e7r'  dhrjXoL^  ovo-c  TOL<i  dirb  tovtcov 

ifiavTM   <y6vr)crojjL6Voi<i, 
lb.  18,  298  :  utt  6pdrj<;  koI  StKaia<;  Kahia^Oopov  Trj<i  '\jrv')(fj'^* 
lb.  21,  30  :  iTrdBijXoLf;  puev  toI<;  dScKTjaovo-tv,  dSij- 

XoL<i  Se  Tol<;  dBtKT^ao fjuev oi<i. 


36  The  Limitations  of  the  Fredicative  Position  in  Greek. 

lb.  18,  258  :  jiera  iroWrj^  ttj^  evheia^  eTpdcf)?]^. 

lb.  21,  8:   Q)(}  vTrep  kolvov  tov  it pd<y jxaTOf;  ovto<;  Kal 

7rpo(T6')(^odv  aKOva-drco. 
fib.  25,  99:   ov  <ydp  Btjttov   KaO'  ev    vpucdv  e/cao-rof;  o)<;  eVt 

KVpLOVf;  TOL'9  vofxov^  iTopevaeTat. 
fib.  35,  22  :  i/cecvov  re  tov  veaviaKov  tov  BavelcravTa  i^rjird- 

TTjaav  ft)9  eirl    eXevO epoLf;   toI<;   'x^prj fxaaL 

EaV6L^6fl6V0L. 

lb.  36,  8  :  aTTo  kocvcov  tcov  ')(^prjixdT(ov. 

lb.    36,   8  ;    €K  KOtVOiV  tcov   '^^^pT^fJudTOdV. 

lb.  36,  39  :  ck  ko  cvcov  iXrjTovpyeL^  tmv  ')(^ p t) fju d t co v . 

lb.  18,  205:  a?  eV  SovXevovay  tj}  TroXei  cf^epetv  dvdyKr}. 

lb.  24,  76  :  ev  BrffMOKpaTovjuevrf  Trj  it6X€l. 

lb.  19,  120:  7rpo9  [Sta]  /jL€/jL€Tpr)fjLev7)v  Tr)v  r^ixepav. 

lb.  20,  16  :  viro  tmv  ofjuoicov  ckovtcov. 

lb.  38,  28:  irap^  eKOVTcov  eXa^ov  tmv  eTTLT poircDV. 
The  first  and  third  of  the  examples  cited  above  from  Demos- 
thenes bear  a  close  resemblance  to  each  other  in  their  structure. 
This  use  of  the  substantivised  participle  was  already  observed  in 
the  usage  of  Thucydides.  Cf.,  e.  g.,  virep  KaXwv  tcov  jjueXXovTcov, 
irepl  fieyiCTTcov  Brj  tcov  hiac^epovTCDv,  and  Plato,  Apol.  20  e :  eU 
d^LO'x^pecov  TOV  XeyovTa.  Also  in  late  Greek,  as,  e.  g.,  Lucian  and 
Dion  Cassius.  In  the  fourth  example  the  reading  of  Voemel  is 
followed.  Noting  that  the  article  is  generally  omitted,  he  says : 
'^  TTjv  S,  unde  Scheibius,  Obs.  in  Orr.  Attic,  p.  66  coniecit,  ut  habet 
Laur.  S,  ttoXX?}?  tt}?  i.  e.  ttoXXtj  yv  rj  evBeia  fjueS'  rj<;  iTpd<j)7]<iy 
Blass  was  doubtful,  but  read  ttoXXt]^  ivBelafi.  The  fifth  example 
has  occasioned  difficulty  among  interpreters.  Buttmann  says  that 
the  mind  must  conceive  the  construction  as  follows :  aKovadTco 
virep  tov  TrpdyfjuaTo^  co?  kolvov  6vto(;  =  ^'  Let  him  now  give  an 
attentive  hearing  to  this  matter,  as  one  of  public  interest."  Fennell 
renders  it  "  considering  that  the  issue  is  of  public  interest."  The 
literal  sense,  he  says,  is  "  considering  that  (he  is  giving  ear  and 
voting)  in  behalf  of  the  case  (it)  being  of  public  interest."  He 
remarks  that  the  difficulty  has  generally  been  passed  over.  The 
principle  referred  to  in  the  case  of  co?  Trepl  dXXoTplov  tov  irpd- 
7yLtaT09  is  inapplicable  here,  kolvov  holding  the  predicative  posi- 
tion bears,  as  usual,  the  main  emphasis.     The  copula  oWo?  which 


The  Limitations  of  the  Predicative  Position  in  Greek,         37 

is  here  expressed  is  more  generally  omitted.  The  seventh  example 
defies  such  analysis  as  was  proposed  in  the  case  of  Isocrates.  In 
the  next  example  Dindorf  read  airo  kocvcov  tmv  'x^prj/jbdrcov  ovtcov. 
Blass  omits  the  copula  with  MSS  F  and  Q,  and  finds  further  sup- 
port in  the  similar  use  of  eV  kolvS)v  tmv  ')(^pr]ixdTcov  without  ovtcov, 
Sandys  and  Paley  (Private  Orations  of  Dem.,  Part  II.,  Cambridge, 
1886)  follow  Dindorf.  On  general  grounds  it  is  better  to  omit 
the  copula.  In  the  case  of  iv  BovXevovo-'p  ry  TroXei,  the  context 
with  its  prominent  ideas  contained  in  the  words  SovXevecv  and  /ier' 
iXevOepia^  ^tjv  prepares  us  for  the  emphatic  SovXevovo-y,  The  form 
is  not  unlike  that  of  the  example  iv  SrjfjLOKpaTov/jLevr)  rfj  ttoXcc, 
which  has  been  noticed  under  Andocides.  They  are,  however, 
different  in  this  respect,  that  in  the  former  case  iv  has  a  local,  in 
the  latter  a  temporal,  signification.  Drake  has  aptly  compared 
Hdt.  5,  29  :  iv  dvearTjKvlrj  rfj  x^PV^  which  has  already  been  noted. 
Compare,  also,  in  post-classical  Greek,  Lucian's  Timon  57  :  iv 
eXevOepa  rfj  iroXet,  The  same  expression  is  also  found  in  Nigrinus 
13  and  Bis  Accusatus  21 .  The  next  example,  irpo^  ScafjLefierpij/jLevrjv 
Tfjv  rjfjbepav,  is  a  technical  expression  which  is  explained  by  Har- 
pocration.  The  judicial  day  was  divided  into  three  parts,  one 
allotted  to  the  plaintiff,  another  to  the  defendant,  and  the  third  to 
the  judges.  Cf.  also  fDem.  53, 17  :  Trpo?  rjfiepav  StafjLe/jLerprjfjLevrjVy 
and  Aeschin.  2,  126  :  iv  Bta/jL6jjL6Tpr]jji€vrj  rrj  rjfiepa  Kplvofiai,.  The 
last  two  examples  have  already  been  noticed  under  the  Isocratean 
use  of  participles. 

Aeschines :  — 

Aeschines  3,  255:  fir)  ovv  o)?  virep  aXXorpiaq ,  dXX'  0)9 
virep    olK€La<;    rrj^;    TroXeco^i   fiovXev- 
eade, 
lb.  3,  58  ;  Trap  eKovrcov  tmv  '^XX'^vayv. 
lb.  3,  126  :  iv  BtafMefjLeTprjfMivr)  rfj  rj/juepa. 
In  the  first  case,  MSS  e  h  k  1  give  irept  for  vTrip  in  both  places. 
Weidner  adopts  irept  in  the  former  place.     The  principle  applied 
to  0)9  Trepl  dXXoTpiov  rod  7rpdyfjLaT0<;  is  pointless  here.    The  second 
and  third  examples  have  already  been  noticed. 

Dinarchus  :  — 

Dinarchus  1,  37:  Trap'  ekovtcov  kol  ^ovXafxevtov  tojv'EiXXtjvcov,, 


38         The  Limitations  of  the  Predicative  Fositio7i  in  Greek. 

This  example  has  already  found  a  place  under  the  Isocratean 
use  of  participles. 

The  survey  of  the  usage  of  the  historians  and  the  Orators,  so  far 
as  the  prepositional  type  of  oblique  predication  is  concerned,  has 
now  been  completed.  In  the  course  of  the  exhibit,  special  notice 
was  taken  of  one  particular  type  which  begins  in  the  Orators  and 
survives  in  certain  post-classical  authors.  The  marks  of  its  crys- 
tallization were  quite  evident.  No  small  number  of  the  examples 
which  lie  outside  this  province  can  be  distinguished  by  the  fact 
that  the  substantive  with  which  they  are  connected  is  frequently 
%co/9(X,  7rarpi<;,  ttoX^ 9.  Notice  was  also  taken  of  a  small  group  with 
the  substantivised  participle.  Another  small  group  may  fitly  be 
noticed  here.  This  type  is  preserved  among  certain  of  the  post- 
classical  writers. 

Ant. :  /jL6Ta  XPV^'^V'^  '^V'>  e'XTrtSo?. 

Dem. :  cltt  6pdrj<i  koI  SiKata^  KaBca^dopov  r-^}?  '^VXH^' 

Plato,  Protag.  357  A  :  iv  opdrj  rfj  alpeorec. 

Dion  Cass.  37,  11,  2:  fiera  aKepaiov  rou  (fipovij/jLaTO^. 

lb.  38,  18,  2  :  cltt  6p6rj<;  koX  ahiac^Oopov  T7]<;  >yv(t)[xr)<;. 

lb.  38,  42,  4  :  air^  opOrj^;  koI  a^okov  t^9  yvcofjurj^;. 

lb.  44,  23,  2  :  dir'  opdy)^  r^?  huavoia^. 

Luc.  Hermot.  6  :  ef  aTeXov<i  Trj<i  eXTrtSo?. 

Between  these  and  certain  examples  of  the  adverbial-dative  type, 
such  as  e\ev6epai<^  rah  yfrvx^at^,  there  seems  to  be  a  close  affinity. 
It  will  be  noticed  that  the  substantives  are  abstracts,  having  to  do 
with  the  inner  life  of  the  person.  In  addition  to  these  groups,  there 
remain  a  comparatively  small  number  of  isolated  cases,  where  a 
special  point  is  made  by  the  use  of  the  predicative  position,  and 
which  have,  therefore,  not  been  perpetuated  as  crystallized  forms. 
It  has  already  been  observed  that  Thucydides  and  Demosthenes 
especially  favor  the  prepositional  type  of  predication  in  its  different 
manifestations.  And,  in  the  case  of  Thucydides,  the  important 
difference  between  his  speeches  and  his  narrative  was  referred  to, 
viz.,  that  he  uses  the  prepositional  type  nine  times  as  often  in  his 
speeches  as  in  his  narrative. 


The  Limitations  of  the  Predicative  Position  in  Greek,         39 

With  the  limited  usage  of  tlie  classical  period,  as  has  been  seen 
in  the  tabulated  statement  and  in  the  former  part  of  this  section, 

stands  in  decided  contrast  the  post- 
PKEPOSITIONAL  TYPE.       ,       .     ,         .    -,  .    -,  , 

(6)  Post-Classical  Greek,     classical  period,  as  represented  by  cer- 
tain of  its  writers,  and,  preeminently, 
Lucian  who,  as  in  the  adv.-dat.  type,  has  been  made  the  basis  of 
this  study.     This  will,  perhaps,  appear  more  clearly  if  the  ex- 
amples are  grouped  as  far  as  possible. 

(1)  It  is  Thucydides  of  the  Attic  writers  who  favored  the  prepo- 
sition TT/oo?  in  connection  with  the  type  in  question.  There  are 
three  examples,  conveying  the  idea  of  opposition  or  contrast,  viz.  : 

Thuc.  1,  36,  1  :  Trpo?  iGyyovra^;  rovg  i')(6pov^. 
lb.  1,  84,  3  :  TT/oo?  €v  ^ovXevofievov^  Tov<i  e'^^pou?. 
lb.  3,  43,  4  :  Trpo?  avevdvvov  rrjv  vfierepav  aKpoaaiv. 

There  are,  on  the  other  hand,  eleven  examples  in  Lucian  : 

Lucian,  Piscator  32  :  tt/jo?  dyvoovvTa<;  rou?  KufiaCovf;. 

lb.  Pro  Imag.  16  :  7rpb<;  ovrw  acfyoSpap  rrjv  Karrfyoplav. 

lb.  Toxaris  29  :  tt/oo?  oijrco  a-KKrjpav  rrjv  Siatrav. 

lb.  Gallus  29 :  tt/^o?  a/juavpav  re  kol  hi'y^rcdcrav  Tr)v  OpvaXkiha. 

lb.  Bis  Accus.  20  :  Trpo?  evirpoo-aiirov  aoc  rrjv  dvrlSiKov, 

lb.  Rhet.  Praec.  23  :  7rpb<;  ovtw  7roX\ov<;  Tov<i  epa)ra<i. 

lb.  De  Electro  3  :  Trpo?  ivavrlov  to  ijBcop. 

lb.  De  Domo  29  :  tt/oo?  oijTco  KaXd^;  koI  7roLKika<^  rdf}  viro- 

lb.  Navigium  9  :  7rpo<;  dvTiov<i  tov<;  irrjcrLa^. 
lb.  Saturnalia  7  :  7rpo9  ovrco  ttoWtjv  rrjv  dSiKiav. 
lb.  Demosth.  Encom.  17  :  tt^o?  Xajjuirpav  rrjv  A7]/jbocrdevov<i 

Bo^av. 

Opposition,  or  contrast,  is  expressed  here,  too,  except  in  the  fourth 
example  where  7rpo9  indicates  the  direction.  The  bulk  of  Lucian, 
it  must  not  be  forgotten,  is  more  than  twice  that  of  Thucydides. 
Still,  every  allowance  made,  one  feels  that  there  has  been  a  wide 
departure  from  Attic  usage.  Omit  the  article  in  a  number  of  these 
examples,  and  there  is  no  real  loss.  This  is  not  true  of  Thucy- 
dides. 


40        The  Limitations  of  the  Predicative  Position  in  Greek. 

Cf.  also  Dion  Chrysostomus  12,  4  :  TTpoTrefjurmv  akviro)^  avTov, 

Q)(i   eoLKe,  7rp0  9    aXvirov 
Tov  Bdvarov . 
Plutarch,  1,  60 :  Trpo?  avriov  ro  irvevfia. 
(2)  Of  the  examples  cited  above  from  Lucian,  it  will  be  noticed 
that  two  have  the  adjective  ttoXu?  in   the  predicative  position. 
There  have  been  observed  only  two  cases  in  the  authors  of  the 
classical  period  who  have  been  examined,  viz., 

Thuc.  8,  38,  3  :  iv  iroWal^  tol^  irplv  [Md')(^DLL<i. 

Dem.  18,  258  :  fjuera  ttoXXt)?  t?}9  eVSeta?.  i 

In  the  former  case  the  article  could  not  well  be  omitted,  and, 
with  its  retention,  a  different  sense  would  be  conveyed  by  the 
attributive  position.  The  second  case,  it  will  be  remembered,  is  a 
disputed  one.  Lucian  has  fifteen  additional  examples  in  which 
iroXv^  holds  the  predicative  position,  e.  g. : 

Lucian,  Timon  13  :  iv  ttoXXgS  tco  g-koto), 

lb.  Charon  11  :  e/c  ttoWov  tov  0d6ov<;. 

lb.  Quom.  hist,  conscr.  1  :  iv  iroW^  rS  (fyXoyfiS, 

lb.  Alexander  39  :  iv  iroWf}  rfj  aicoTrfj. 

lb.  "  44  :  eVl  ttoWwv  tcov  Trapovrav. 

lb.  De  Saltatione  40  :  i/c  iroWcov  tmv  TrapaXeXec/jifievcov. 

Cf.  also  Demonax  31,  Gallus  19,  Rhet.  Praec.  3,  Hippias  7, 
Advers.  Indoct.  19,  24,  De  Dipsad.  2,  Dial.  Meretr.  14,  2,  De 
Morte  Peregr.  19.  Similar  are  Gallus  15,  Icaromenip.  17,  and 
Apologia  15. 

So  Lucian  uses  0X^709,  but  not  frequently. 

Lucian,  Anacharsis  11  :  eV  oXlycov  tcov  fiaprvpcov. 
lb.  Hermot.  58  :  dir  oXljov  tov  yevfjuaTog. 

With  the  former  of  these  examples,  cf.  Xen.  Hell.  6,  4,  1  :  iir" 
oXiycDV  fjioc  SoKovcn  fjuapTvpcov.  The  latter  example  is  inter- 
esting in  another  way,  for,  earlier  in  the  same  chapter,  we  have 
the  attributive  position  with  the  article  :  diro  ye  tov  okiyov  eKeivov 
yevfjuaTOfij  where  the  article  is  plainly  anaphoric,  strengthened,  it  is 
true,  by  the  demonstrative  i/c62vo<;.  But,  in  this  example,  the 
article  has  no  such  justification.  If  it  is  omitted,  the  sense  is  con- 
veyed equally  as  well.      In  other  words,  Lucian  is  here  giving 


The  Limitations  of  the  Predicative  Position  in  Greek,         41 

predicative  expression  to  what  is  really  an  attributive  relation. 

Post-classical  examples  to  which  no  such  objection  can  be  made 

are : 

Dion  Chrysostoraus  11,  1  :  fjuavOdvova-i  jnev  fioyc'^  idv  rt  koX 

fiddcocro,  Trap*  oXufycov  to)v  el- 
BoTcov,  i^airarSyvTai  Se  Td')(^tcrTa 

VTTO    TTOWCOV    T  (b  V    OVK    €fc86- 
TCOV  . 

Dion  Cassius  56,   17,  2:   ravra    yap    o-tto    TroWcjv    tmv 

'^Ir  1]  (f)  I,  (T  6  i  V  T  (O  V  <T(^lO-LV  6  AvryOV- 

aTo<;  iSe^aTO. 

fiaKpo^  is  similarly  used  by  Lucian. 

Lucian  Deor.  Dial.  10,  2  :  vtto  fiaKpw  tm  ^6(l)(p. 
lb.  De  Merc.  Conduct.  37  :  8id  fiaKpov  rod  xp^vov. 
lb.  Jupp.  Confut.  7  :  viro  fiaKpS  roS  Xlvo). 
lb.  Navigium  44  :  iv  fjuaKpS  tS  /Slo). 

With  the  foregoing  examples  may  be  compared  the  following 
from  Aelian,  given  by  Schmid,  Atticismus,  vol.  3,  p.  63. 

Aelian  N  A  34,  6  :  iv  /juaKpS  rS  ^povco, 

lb.  **     36,  3  :  Kara  ttoWtjv  rrjv  elpijvrjv, 

lb.  **     47,  24  :  ck  itoWov  roii  aWepo^  /cal  vy^rfKov. 

lb.  "   112,30:   Kara  TToWhv  Tr]v  (TTTOvhriv. 

(3)  Several  of  the  examples  with  the  predicative  position  in 
Lucian  are  introduced  by  the  preposition  viro  with  the  dat.  Some 
of  these  occur  in  the  groups  already  given.  The  following  may 
also  be  noted : 

Lucian,  De  Merc.  Conduct.  23 :  viro  fxeya\o(f)(i)V(p  tg5  ktjpvkl. 

lb.  Herodotus  6  :  viro  vv/j,^ajcoy(p  ro)  ^acriXel. 

lb.  Quom.  hist,  conscr.  2  :  vtto  fna  rfj  opfjuf}  (cf.  Anach.  26.) 

lb.  Phalaris  post.  8  :  viro  yecopyS  rS  OeS. 

lb.  Philopseudes  32  :  vtto  TrvKvfj  rfj  ^do-et. 

lb.  Pseudolog.  17 :  viro  TrovijpM  rS  Trpcorq)  Kal  Svatp^/j,^ 
K\rjSovL(r/jLarL. 

lb.  Navigium  11  :  t'Tro  Xafirrpa  rfj  SaBL 

No  instance  of  vtto  with  the  dat.  in  this  construction  has  been 
found  in  the  writers  of  the  classical  period. 


42        The  Limitations  of  the  Predicative  Position  in  Greek, 

(4)  The  preposition  most  commonly  employed  in  this  type,  alike 
in  classical  and  post-classical  Greek,  is  iv.  In  addition  to  the  ex- 
amples cited  in  other  connections,  may  be  noteS  : 

Lucian,  Timon  13  :  iv  ')(^a\K(a  r)  crtSrjpM  rS  9a\dfjb(p. 

lb.  De  Merc.  Cond.  22  :  iv  a/juvSpa)  ray  (^xori  (cf.  Alex.  17). 

lb.  Apologia  8  :  iv  ovro)<;  a/bu^iXaipel  ry  vwodeaei, 

lb.  Quom.  hist,  conscr.  4 :  iv  ovro)  TroXvcfxovq)  too  KacpS. 

(5)  The  preposition  eVt  with  the  dat.  is  quite  common.  Demos- 
thenes is  the  only  classical  author  who  makes  use  of  it  in  prose. 

Cf.  Lucian,  Hermot.  74  :  iirl  aa6pol<;  tol(;  Oefiekioifi  tovtol<;. 
lb.  Quom.  hist,  conscr.  35  :  icj)'  ovtw  fjueyaXw  koI  ^(^aXeirw  to3 

TTpdfyfJLaTL. 

lb.  Demonax  8  :  iir   oXcryo-y^poviOL^;  to??  Bokov(tlv  dyaOot*;. 
lb.  Toxaris  35:  eTrl  7rpoSrj\(p  to5  fiiKpov  varepov  XvOrj- 

creadat. 
lb.  Toxaris  41  :  eVl  TV(f>\(p  toS  AavSdfiiBL. 
lb.  Jupp.  Trag.  31 :  6</)'  ovtco  aa<^el  koX  TrpoBijXa)  to3  ^p77cryLfca), 
lb.  Rhet.  Praec.  24:  eVl  -^cXS  tm  Tpe(j)eo-6ac. 
lb.  Pseudolog.  26  :  eVl  ireTrpayfjuevo)  tjBt)  rtp  epy(p. 
lb.  De  Domo  1  :  iwl  irpoBrjXw  rjj  v6a(p. 
lb.  Epist.  Saturn.  35  :  eVl  KareayoTi  to3  djjb^opeL. 

Especially  to  be  noticed,  in  the  foregoing  list,  are  the  two  occur- 
rences of  the  articular  infinitive  with  the  adjective  in  the  predica- 
tive position.  There  is  no  similar  occurrence  in  classical  Greek 
within  the  range  of  authors  examined. 

(6)  Finally  may  be  noted  a  small  prepositional  group  which  is 
closely  related  to  the  adverbial-dative  group  in  the  character  of  the 
substantives  which  are  used. 

Lucian,  Nigrinus  11  :  diro  yvjuuvov  .  .  .  rovfiov  Trpoo-coTrov, 
lb.  Toxaris  19  :  diro  yjriXrj';  tt)^  icepaia^» 
lb.  Toxaris  60  :  diro  yvfivrj^  rrj^  fcecfyaXrj^, 

The  presence  of  the  possessive  is  to  be  noticed  in  the  first  of 
these  examples.  The  construction  is  usually  not  so  transparent  as 
it  is  here. 

This  concludes  the  survey  of  post-classical  Greek,  especially  as 
seen  in  the  pages  of  Lucian,  who  fairly  revels  in  this  construction. 


The  Limitations  of  the  Predicative  Position  in  Greek.       43 

The  words  of  I.  Guttentag,  De  subdito  qui  inter  Lucianeos  legi 
solet  dialogo  Toxaride,  Berlin,  1860,  p.  44,  in  this  connection,  are 
substantially  well-founded :  "  Proprium  hoc  quoque  Luciani  est, 
quod  multo  frequentius  quam  alii  scriptores  articulum  inter  adiec- 
tivum  et  substantivum  ponit,  et  ita  quidem,  ut  articulus  nonnum- 
quam  adiectivum  antecedere,  multo  saepius  integra  sententia  omitti 
possit.  Oratio  tamen  elegantior  interdum  est,  si  articulus  adiec- 
tivum sequitur,  quam  si  praeponitur,  quaesita  saepe  magis  videtur, 
si  articulus  usurpatur,  quam  si  omittitur.'' 

After  noting  the  views  current  in  antiquity  among  the  gram- 
marians with  reference  to  the  nature  of  the  Greek  article,  and 

showing    how    the    article    gradually 
CONCLUSION.  developed  from  the  demonstrative  pro- 

noun, the  writer  entered  upon  a  con- 
sideration of  the  subject  of  oblique  predication,  in  which  was 
included  the  use  of  adjective  and  participle  alike.  The  range  of 
this  construction  was  given  for  the  Attic  Orators  and  Thucydides, 
and  a  more  especial  study  was  made  of  two  types  which  were 
denominated  the  adverbial-dative  and  the  prepositional.  The  lim- 
itations in  the  use  of  these  two  types  on  the  part  of  the  classical 
authors  were  observed,  and  by  a  comparison  with  post-classical 
authors,  more  especially  Lucian,  the  deviations  from  the  norm  of 
Attic  usage  were  indicated.  The  origin  of  the  comitative,  or  soci- 
ative,  dative  was  briefly  considered,  and  it  was  shown  that  the  dat. 
type  is  mainly  concerned  with  the  body  and  its  parts,  any  expan- 
sions being  due  to  the  workings  of  the  principle  of  analogy.  The 
prepositional  type  was  seen  to  possess  a  higher  character  than  the 
adv.-dat.  type,  and,  as  a  consequence,  was  used,  when  impressive- 
ness  was  sought,  by  Thucydides,  in  particular,  of  the  historians, 
with  the  important  qualification  that  it  is  mainly  restricted  to  his 
speeches,  and  for  this  very  reason,  and  by  Demosthenes  of  the 
Orators.  Many  of  these  expressions,  as  was  shown,  crystallised 
and  were  imitated  by  certain  post-classical  writers.  The  home  of 
oblique  predication  in  general,  and  of  the  prepositional  type  in 
particular,  was  seen  to  be  in  oratory  which  seeks  to  be  vigorous, 
concise,  and  impressive — in  fine,  in  Epideictic  Oratory. 


LIFE. 

Alfred  William  Milden  was  born  in  Whitevale,  Ontario,  on  March 
11,  1868.  His  preliminary  education  was  received  in  the  Public 
School  and  the  High  School  of  Cornwall,  Ontario.  He  matriculated 
at  the  University  of  Toronto  in  the  year  1884,  and,  four  years  later, 
graduated  with  the  degree  of  B.  A.  with  classical  honors.  For  a  period 
of  nearly  eight  years,  he  was  engaged  in  the  teaching  of  classics, 
mainly  in  the  Collegiate  Institute  of  Barrie,  Ontario.  In  the  fall  of 
1896  he  entered  the  Johns  Hopkins  University  as  a  post-graduate 
student  in  Greek,  Latin,  and  Sanskrit.  At  the  end  of  his  second 
year  he  was  appointed  Fellow  in  Greek ;  and  at  the  end  of  his  third 
year,  in  June,  1899,  he  received  the  degree  of  Doctor  of  Philosophy. 
During  the  year  1899-1900  he  has  been  Fellow  by  Courtesy.  He  has 
attended  the  lectures  of  Professors  Gildersleeve,  Warren,  Bloomfield, 
Smith,  and  Miller,  to  all  of  whom  he  is  indebted. 

He  would  especially  mention  Professor  Gildersleeve  and  Professor 
Miller,  to  the  former  of  whom,  in  common  with  his  many  students, 
he  must  express  the  strong  sense  of  his  indebtedness  for  inspiration, 
guidance,  and  encouragement  in  the  prosecution  of  his  studies. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 
BERKELEY 

Return  to  desk  from  which  borrowed.                            \ 

1 

This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 

i5Aug'4g/^p 
/^iarRETO 

• 

1  ; 

: 
] 

j^R32l955l8 

1 
1 

EEC.  cm.  DEC  03  tt 

i 

HOV  0 1  ^^^ 

AUTO.  DISC. 

\ 

AUG  0  Jl  i^^^ 

LDQiRcy^^id 

1 

3)476 

MAKERS 


U.C.  BERKELEY  LIBRARIES 


CQ2D1b327D 


« 


